dcspector
Senior Member
- Location
- Burke, Virginia
Nor do we here. Good post Don.
service disconnect location
- Thread starter Nick D.
- Start date
- Status
Nor do we here. Good post Don.
Hendrix
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
What did I do now :grin:
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
Where's the distortion? That sounds compliant. Not pretty, maybe.
Disco at ceiling height with permanent ladder, and ML panel below.
wbalsam1
Senior Member
- Location
- Upper Jay, NY
- Location
- Massachusetts
It remains my opinion that if the CMP meant what you believe that the wording would be "at the point of entrance" not "nearest the point of entrance" :smile:
The planet Mercury is 'nearest to the sun' but it is hardly 'at the sun'. :smile:
dcspector
Senior Member
- Location
- Burke, Virginia
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
I wouldn't recommend doing it, but what's non-compliant about it?I don't see any "smilies" but I can only hope you're joking.
A permanent ladder or platform renders the disco 'readily accessible.'
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
So, in your solar system, Mercury would not require an exterior disconnect. :wink:
- Location
- Massachusetts
Nope but any feeders to remote planets will have to have a disconnecting means. Voltage drop is a bear. :wink:
dcspector
Senior Member
- Location
- Burke, Virginia
Well good analogy but I feel "at" was a figure of speech. "The" as in Nearest the point .......Picky picky....but point made.
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
dcspector
Senior Member
- Location
- Burke, Virginia
I have a strange feeling this thread will turn into a solar system thing now...:roll:
- Location
- Massachusetts
I can put the brakes on that. :smile:
dcspector
Senior Member
- Location
- Burke, Virginia
service disconnect location
It amuses me to see how some try using the wording to try allowing the service main to be not at the point of entrance.
I really believe we understand that the intent is to keep the unprotected service conductors inside a dwelling to a minimum.IMO that is a good idea.
With that in mind in the interest of public safety I will continue to red tag any installations not at the point of entrance.
It amuses me to see how some try using the wording to try allowing the service main to be not at the point of entrance.
I really believe we understand that the intent is to keep the unprotected service conductors inside a dwelling to a minimum.IMO that is a good idea.
With that in mind in the interest of public safety I will continue to red tag any installations not at the point of entrance.
- Location
- Massachusetts
It amuses me that your answering the thread without really reading it,
or that is what it seems.No doubt, I agree.
Really? I don't think you do.
Don's point was that in his opinion the wording of the NEC allows no amount of service conductor to enter the building.
I would have to have come from outside the building directly into the back of the panel. Now as I am sure you are aware in MA that is not the case, most panels are in the basement and have 3' to 5' of service conductors coming in through the sill and down the basement wall into the top of panel. In Don's opinion the NEC directly prohibits that.
I am not at all suggesting I can run 30' into the building, only that I can run far enough to get into a panel that is located nearest the point of entrance not at the point of entrance. :smile:
Pierre C Belarge
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
The wording of 230.70(A)(1) addresses the disconnecting means.
It does not say much, except for alluding to, the SE conductors.
I, myself think that this section needs to be addressed. It was probably fine when first written, but now, like other code wording, has been disected and needs a little "massaging."
The CMP(s) responsible for this SE cable and service disconnecting means should further evaluate the wording.
Why?
Like other sections of the NEC that have been addressed when there is confusion in enforcement, this section is no different.
It would be interesting in the least to see how this wording could be worked on to ease the enforcement dilemas we see in the field.
It does not say much, except for alluding to, the SE conductors.
I, myself think that this section needs to be addressed. It was probably fine when first written, but now, like other code wording, has been disected and needs a little "massaging."
The CMP(s) responsible for this SE cable and service disconnecting means should further evaluate the wording.
Why?
Like other sections of the NEC that have been addressed when there is confusion in enforcement, this section is no different.
It would be interesting in the least to see how this wording could be worked on to ease the enforcement dilemas we see in the field.
service disconnect location
It amuses me that your answering the thread without really reading it,
No doubt, I agree.
Really? I don't think you do.
Don's point was that in his opinion the wording of the NEC allows no amount of service conductor to enter the building.
I would have to have come from outside the building directly into the back of the panel. Now as I am sure you are aware in MA that is not the case, most panels are in the basement and have 3' to 5' of service conductors coming in through the sill and down the basement wall into the top of panel. In Don's opinion the NEC directly prohibits that.
I am not at all suggesting I can run 30' into the building, only that I can run far enough to get into a panel that is located nearest the point of entrance not at the point of entrance. :smile:[/QUOTE
I doubt that is Dons point,if it is then I disagree with him. The 3ft. to 5ft. you suggest IMO is acceptable and code compliant as being at the nearest the point of enterance.
- Location
- Massachusetts
I respectfully ask why you feel that way?
Have you any evidence that as it is written today it is creating an electrical hazard?
Not trying to be a wise guy, I just personally do not like to see code changes without ample substantiation. :smile:
If we could point to a number of fires and or injuries directly as a result of letting a few feet of service conductors inside the building then I would say the NEC would need to address it.
California is a great example, they allow the RMC service riser to enter the building through the roof and down inside the wall all the way to the panel. One would have to imagine that after many years of allowing this if it was resulting in fires the powers that be would change the rules. Especially since CA seems quick to 'make a rule' needed or not.:smile:
- Location
- Massachusetts
I am hesitant to speak for Don, maybe he will jump back in but here is what he said in about the 5th or 6th post. :smile:
- Status