Service Rigid Pipe

[noxx]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

I was wondering if the seal for a mast breaks down from movement of the mast

Because the RMC passes through the top plate, if the hole is drilled to close tolerance, and at least one other means of support is used, the resulting assembly has little if any give. Frankly, when I install a two inch riser in this fashion I can go up on the roof and hit the thing like the offensive line and not get a sixteenth out of it.

A properly installed flashing with Henry's to seal will keep it weathertight indefinitely.

 

[stamcon]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

Bennie, in Ca., you can have up to 6 switches or circuit breakers to disconnect the service entrance conductors (230-71 2001CEC). I also agree that the mast in the photo doen't look to code. I don't see an inspection sticker on the panel and since the POCO hasn't made the permanent connections, when they do come out, they might not make the connections.

steve

 

[iwire]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

Originally posted by noxx:
I can go up on the roof and hit the thing like the offensive line and not get a sixteenth out of it.

Cool

[ November 16, 2003, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[iwire]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

Doh

[ November 16, 2003, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[bennie]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

Stamcon: I stand corrected, I forgot the HUD mandate to accept the NEC. There is not likely to be six switches, so this provision is not really in the game anymore.

I never see newer homes with more than one or two mains. And the two are usually the 320 amp services.

[ November 16, 2003, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: bennie ]

 

[Guest]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

I'd rather see RMC in the wall (overhead or underground) than SE stapled supersurface:

I can find nothing in the NEC that says service drops (or underground service feeds) cannot be in the wall. I see nothing about encasing them in 2" of concrete either. Nor do I find anything prohibiting horizontal in-wall runs (as long as there are not more than 360-degrees of bends).

It's an AHJ and PoCo call. The NEC is clearly vague about the details. These semi-flush meter-main/combos are UL listed to have the drop or riser in the wall. When I saw SE stapled to the lap siding in New England I always assumed it was a DIY scab job. I stand corrected.

[ November 18, 2003, 04:16 AM: Message edited by: awwt ]

 

[iwire]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

ARTICLE 230 Services

230.6 Conductors Considered Outside the Building.
Conductors shall be considered outside of a building or other structure under any of the following conditions:

(1) Where installed under not less than 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete beneath a building or other structure

(2) Where installed within a building or other structure in a raceway that is encased in concrete or brick not less than 50 mm (2 in.) thick

230.70 General.
Means shall be provided to disconnect all conductors in a building or other structure from the service-entrance conductors.

(A) Location. The service disconnecting means shall be installed in accordance with 230.70(A)(1), (2), and (3).

(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.

What constitutes "nearest" is up to the AHJ.

posted by awwt.

When I saw SE stapled to the lap siding in New England I always assumed it was a DIY scab job.

Go easy with that "Scab" talk, a lot of the country uses SE.

If you have been reading I have not said it was better or worse.

Show some respect for all the methods in use.

If you have not lived with SE installations you can not possibly know if it is dangerous.

[ November 18, 2003, 04:33 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[pierre]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

I have read through all of the posts here and it is always interesting to note how different parts of the country use different methods. What I say is do not knock the methods one uses because you do not like it. SE has been used for many years and is a safe installation.
Remember that Mass. and Mich. do not have the NM restrictions that the NEC imposes and it seems to work just fine for those two states. But you will hear some say that NM is just terrible.

You can see from my response that I thought right away that all jurisdictions had the same rule for this method, and I was wrong.
Bob and I are from the same area, and I share his passionate response about it not be considered safe in our area - it is ingrained in our brains that this is considered a big no no here. Give him credit for seeing the difference once explained to him.

Pierre

 

[russellroberts]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

I know of SE cable installations around here that have been in use for 30 or 40 yrs, and still working fine. ( A few coats of paint probably has helped preserve it)

Russell

 

[david]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

awwt

Would you say then that you could install service entrance cable inside the wall of a dwelling from the roof to the basement?

Because Calf. has amended the NEC and allows Service cable to penetrate the roof as long as it in rigid conduit, and run through the interior of a dwelling does not change the fact that when you penetrate the dwelling an run in side the wall you are inside the dwelling.

 

[bennie]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

I don't agree that permitting a riser in the wall is an amendment. The riser, if exposed and inside the dwelling, can run to the disconnect switch at the closest possible location.

UL standards do not apply to ammendments. The rule is either National or it is a waste of time to address.

A case of point is in Hawaii, where single wall siding construction is popular. The same material that constitutes the interior is also the exterior. There is no inside of wall. The riser is in contact with the structure, if inside or outside.

[ November 18, 2003, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: bennie ]

 

[charlie]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

I don't agree that permitting a riser in the wall is an amendment.

Bennie, take a look at 230.6 for the Code language and tell me how anything inside of the outer veneer would still be considered outside a building or structure. The only way this works is through the local amendments, ordnances, or interpretation. I know for a fact that California does not use the NESC, that leads me to believe that they have amended the NEC as well.

 

[bennie]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

There is nothing that says the service entrance conductors must be outside the building.

The only requirement is the switch must be at the nearest point of entry. The nearest point of entry for a legally located switch is at the 6 foot 7 inch, or less, elevation.

A conduit or SE cable attached to the exterior wall, does not meet the definition of being outside the building, unless encased in 2 inches of concrete.

It is impossible to keep the service entrance conductors from being concealed in a wall, when the panel is indoors, unless the switch is at the weatherhead, or at a remote location.

230.1 Indicates the service entrance conductors start at the meter can, and terminate at the main overcurrent device. It appears the service drop terminates at the meter can supply side lugs, not at the weatherhead.

I fail to see anything forbidding service conductors or service entrance conductors from being concealed within a wall. Neither does UL, NEMA, or California State. No amendment is necessary for this procedure.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

A conduit or SE cable attached to the exterior wall, does not meet the definition of being outside the building, unless encased in 2 inches of concrete.

What definition is that? I can't find it. . . .something on the outside is on the inside

Respectfully. . .

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

Bennie,
This in not as clear cut as you make it seem. It is a matter of interpretation. In my opinion a conduit or cable that is in a wall is "in the building".
Don

 

[earlydean]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

The simple fact that California had to modify the NEC to allow the conduit "in the wall" clearly indicates that the lawmakers in California knew it was forbidden by the NEC. Therefore, all this "in the wall outside of the building" talk is 100% bogus. What we see in the pics are enclosures rated for outdoor use being imbedded in the structure. Sure, that is OK, as NEMA 4R can be installed in wet, damp or dry locations. I grew up in California, but currently live in Connecticut. Both installations are used, one is NEC compliant, the other is not. Both are legal, because of California's amendement to the NEC.

 

[bennie]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

Service entrance conduits on, or in, a building are permitted. The only stipulation is the switch must be at the closest point of entry.

A conduit attached to the exterior, of a building does not meet the definition as indicated in 230.6, as being considered outside the building.

I do think it is clear that service entrance conductors can be installed at a maximum of 30 feet inside a building or structure, with no special material. This rule pertains to auxiliary gutters, but could apply to any metal raceway.

 

[iwire]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

Originally posted by bennie:
I do think it is clear that service entrance conductors can be installed at a maximum of 30 feet inside a building or structure, with no special material. This rule pertains to auxiliary gutters, but could apply to any metal raceway.

Bennie I would never be allowed in this state to run a gutter 30' inside a building containing service conductors.

How can you argue at the same time it is a better installation because it is protected from the elements and then claim they are not "inside" the building?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

Bennie,
What part of Article 366 modifies the rules in Article 230? If you are looking at 366.3, I don't see anything there that changes the "nearest the point of entrance" rule in 230.
Don

 

[bennie]

Re: Service Rigid Pipe

I am not stating that 366 modifies anything. There is no need.

The physical configuration of a metal raceway containing service entrance conductors sets a precedent for other metal enclosed service conductors.

Conductors in a gutter, are no different than in a metal conduit. Except splices can be in a gutter.