|
0 members (),
174
guests, and
29
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,682 Likes: 3
OP
Administrator Member
|
Would this pass 230.70 A (1) "The service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either outside of a building or nearest the point of entrance of service conductors." The cable continues three feet outside the picture and out to the meter.
Electricmanscott ![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/Forum/Images/Long_SEU.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 206
Member
|
Electricmanscott, I would say you are right at the limit of Mass Electric Code 230.70 A (1) which allows you to go 10'. Under the NEC I would say this would not pass.
Al
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
Moderator
|
Al that section requires the disconnect if located outside to be within 10' of building served. Inside it is still 'nearest the point of entrance'. As you know I have not done many home services but I thought most of the inspectors are looking for 5' or less? 2002 Mass amendments 230.70(A)(1). Revise to read as
follows:
(1) Readily Accessible Location. The service
disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either outside and attached to or within 3 m (10 ft) of the building or structure served, or inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors. In my opinion the wording is tough to decipher. I have not seen the 2005 amendments, perhaps there is a change. Bob
Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,457
Member
|
Bob, still reads the same for '05. By the way I did not, and would not install this.
[This message has been edited by Electricmanscott (edited 02-05-2005).]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
Moderator
|
Scott I did not, and would not install this. He** I knew that. ![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/smile.gif) Bob
Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 613
Member
|
NO...that is beyond the nearest point IMO.
shortcircuit
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 335
Member
|
Not a chance on God's green earth (around here)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 162
Member
|
Scott
Is the masonary wall clear of obstruction and provides access per 110.26??
No Oil Tanks Etc.Just curious!!
Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,374
Moderator
|
Wouldn't pass here.
Ryan Jackson,
Salt Lake City
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 81
Member
|
NM stapled on the face of those 2x4's wouldn't pass around here either
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,457
Member
|
Charlie, that wall is clear. The panel could have gone there. Or an ouside disco could have been used. I wonder if there was a final inspection here. This was part of a large addtion renovation to the house last fall. This is in a city that is usually very thourough but I know they have been shorthanded for a while. I was there adding some receptacles to a new kitchen island. The work inside the panel is just as bad as the outside. Doubled up neutrals, no bushing on the se connector, home made two pole afci breaker.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 162
Member
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 806
Member
|
Yikes indeed. I'm also not liking the bends in the SE cable wrinkling the outer covering.
Stupid should be painful.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,294
Member
|
None of it would pass inspection here. Thank goodness it's not acceptable anyplace else, either
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,876
Member
|
The SE cable can not be used here. But the distance is well within what would be allowed here in SF. It's just one of those regional things... Heres some 2002 commentary on the subject of 230.70 No maximum distance is specified from the point of entrance of service conductors to a readily accessible location for the installation of a service disconnecting means. The authority enforcing this Code has the responsibility for, and is charged with, making the decision as to how far inside the building the service-entrance conductors are allowed to travel to the main disconnecting means. The length of service-entrance conductors should be kept to a minimum inside buildings, because power utilities provide limited overcurrent protection and, in the event of a fault, the service conductors could ignite nearby combustible materials.
Some local jurisdictions have ordinances that allow service-entrance conductors to run within the building up to a specified length to terminate at the disconnecting means. The authority having jurisdiction may permit service conductors to bypass fuel storage tanks or gas meters and the like, permitting the service disconnecting means to be located in a readily accessible location. 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. Heres a little photo gallery of Service conductors that travel within walls from the last time this came up. (Interpeting the same code) http://www.markhellerelectric.com/services/serviceconds.htm [This message has been edited by e57 (edited 02-07-2005).]
Mark Heller
"Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 745
Member
|
e57: Thanks for posting these interesting pictures. Down here in SE Texas (as in many other areas, too), this is very common, especially in older residences and commercial businesses. In my own residence (long since rewired), the service came in from the street and traveled in raceway through the entire length of the attic to the utility room at the back of the house, where it hit the main disco/meter/fuses. Pretty scary to think about that much essentially unprotected service up there in the attic. ![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/frown.gif) The upside; every time I see one of these services I wonder what kind of vintage equipment is at the other end... Mike (mamills)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,876
Member
|
SF will allow (Currently, I get a different answer, and ask every time.) 40'!
However, I have seen simular existing/original installs that were whole house, and close to 80'. Like the one you mentioned.
The reactions you get here on this and other forums, is that it would never fly anywhere, anytime. I find it facinating. I have never seen SEC used here, except for oven feeds and sub-panels. Smurf tube is non existant, except for Oakland in slab, and no one stocks it.
And back to thread in this pic', Romex is subject to physical damage under 8' unless behind finish. And would not pass my personal standard 110.12 the way it run.
Mark Heller
"Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
Moderator
|
It is intresting to see all the different methods used around the country. The best thing is each method works fine for that area. I have to ask about this; Romex is subject to physical damage under 8' unless behind finish. Is this a local code because it is not in the NEC. What is in the NEC is 334.15(A) 334.15 Exposed Work.
In exposed work, except as provided in 300.11(A), the cable shall be installed as specified in 334.15(A) through (C).
(A) To Follow Surface. The cable shall closely follow the surface of the building finish or of running boards. Bob
Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,876
Member
|
Of course it is, Bob!
300-4(g). Add a definition as follows:
(g)Subject to Physical Damage. Premises wiring systems installed less than 8 feet (2.44 m) above a walking surface or finished floor are considered subject to physical damage. SF has some really heavy, and nearly facsist enforced and overly interpited codes: It's a culture in our building dept. The romex deal is a strict enforcement of the interpitation of "Physical Damage" which also applies to MC as well. (As 300.4 mentions "Cable", but doesn't define what type.) Below 8' almost anything is subject to "Physical Damage" if they want it to be.... Another simular interpetation is for GEC's. Then there are some others that are actually additional codes: http://gcp.esub.net/cgi-bin/om_isap...nfran.nfo&softpage=browse_frame_pg42 Like: The ones from that site are interpeted in the following manner. No PVC unless encased in concrete, or UG only for utility purposes. Exit in metalic conduit for either. All Service Conductors must be in RMC above 18" below grade. No non-metalic wiring methods in Commercial at all. Purple High-legs. Anyway it has taken years to become aclimatized to the culture here. It can be a blessing, as many EC's have trouble working here. Some don't come back.... The one saving grace is that ALL Codes are STRICTLY ENFORCED! Really, they don't miss much.
Mark Heller
"Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 613
Member
|
e57...interesting set of rules you have to follow out there in SF. Surprising to see they allow homeowners to do there own work.It must be profitable for the contractors qualified to work in the city.
shortcircuit
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,294
Member
|
There's more to the interesting San Francisco Code. They've also decided that they don't need to abide by the State's Rules, either. http://www.bsc.ca.gov/proc_rsltn/pr_proc_amnd.html "Make an express finding that each change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions." (These "express findings" aren't judged for their validity by the State, btw) You're expected to follow rules made by an entity that doesn't seem to follow rules.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 625
Member
|
Clearly, the climate in San Francisco is so extreme that many changes to the NEC are required. After all, the NEC is only designed to cover the extremes experienced by the rest of the United States, not those extreme extremes to which San Francisco is subject.
[This message has been edited by SolarPowered (edited 02-10-2005).]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,876
Member
|
Electure, we've batted this one around before, I think the last time we discussed 230.70? Ya SF has its own book so to speak... But I tell ya, this culture of superceding the State spreads like a cancer. Breaking the rules isn't limited to SF. Solarpowered can probhably attest to another town or two down his way that do likewise. Like Hillsborough... NO CABLE! NM or MC/AC... All in conduit or flex, or nothing at all. They say they have "rat problems". Purposely driving up building cost is more like it. $2M will get you a shack there. If they allowed a less expensive wiring method they think thier homes would be cheapened in some way.... http://www.hillsborough.net/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2149 (see page 13-16) If you thought SF had a blaten disreguard for the State, you'll love this!
Mark Heller
"Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,056
Member
|
e57,
I wonder if any of those Victorians are near the famous "Grateful Dead" house? (710 Ashbury).
Never been there, but was always interested in going.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,876
Member
|
Nah, all of those were on my way to and from work. From Twin Peaks to Potrero Hill. (West to East) The Vic's were on Delores Hieghts. Haight/Ashbury is North fifteen blocks or so. Along with the Manson Vic at Alamo sq., which is to your direct right if you're looking at the famous seven sisters Vic's. http://www.pcimagenetwork.com/frisco/p3.htm ![[Linked Image from noehill.com]](http://www.noehill.com/sf/vics/fulton1198/fulton_1198_01_thumb.jpg) [This message has been edited by e57 (edited 02-21-2005).]
Mark Heller
"Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
|
|
|
|
Posts: 32
Joined: June 2004
|
|
|
|
