# NEC 230.6 - Relevance?



## Krummholz (Feb 9, 2011)

*230.6 Conductors Considered Outside the Building*
[Service Entrance] Conductors shall be considered outside of a building or other structure under any of the following conditions:
< 4 conditions listed >

My question is, "ok, so what?"

We're headed into a nasty generator installation for an existing building where we have a utilty transformer feeding an interior service entrance switchboard. Existing structure virtually precludes being able to bury the re-routed SE conductors to the ATS and MSB. We solved the problem, but the question of potentially having to concreate encase the exposed conduits raised this sticky code question (at least I consider it sticky ).

Aside from being referenced by *230.32 Protection Against Damage* (Underground Service-Lateral Conductors), which requires svc laterals entering a building be installed iaw *230.6* *OR* *230.43* (which allows all the usual wiring methods we employ), how is *230.6* otherwise relevant to installing service entrance conductors (SECs), let alone requiring some of them be say, encased in concrete?

*Scenario 1*: an underground lateral installed in conduit from a utility transformer exits the ground and terminates in a service entrance disconnect, say 5' above.

*Scenario 2*: an underground lateral installed in conduit from a utility transformer exits the ground below grade into the ceiling of a parking garage, converts from PVC to EMT and runs some distance before it terminates in a service entrance disconnect.

Seemingly without exception, inspectors, LAHJs, municipalities etc. require the exposed portion of the lateral in scenario 2 to be "protected against damage" - typically encased in concrete (or one of the other provisions of *230.6*), while the exposed portion of the lateral in scenario 1 is almost exclusively NOT required to be similarly protected.

Notwithstanding the very real safety issues involved with scenario 2 (i.e. inadvertently damaging or cutting into conductors that have no overcurrent protection), I have a hard time justifying *WITH CODE* the need to REQUIRE say, concrete encasement of those conduits in scenario 2, let alone why NOT encasing those in scenario 1 is otherwise permitted - particularly since there are a multitude of similar examples/exceptions (e.g. overhead drops which can run past the weatherhead many feet - often an entire length of a building exposed before terminating in the SE disconnect).

I understand too that the conduits in #2 aren't readily identifiable as service laterals, as they are in #1 (to all save those deserving of a hasty exit from the gene pool ). 

Moreover, *I AGREE* they *should* receive special protection - or at least better definition within the NEC for certain circumstances. But like I said, I'm having a hard time justifying it WITH CODE. I've been round and round on this with others, seen numerous discussions on it and while some (inspectors mostly ) seem to have no problem with the convoluted reasoning necessary to justify concrete encasement (e.g.), others like myself are unsatisfied by how the NEC is worded in this regard.

Other NEC references often cited:
*230.70(A)(1)* - Requires the service *disconnecting means* be readily accessible outside the building or inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors. (Often cited, but really not relevant to the question as it only pertains to location of the SE disconnect).
*230.49* and *300.5* (esp. *300.5(D)(4)*)- Protection against physical damage - Minimum Cover Requirements.

I hope I'm making sense . *230.6* seems to be utterly irrelevant, disconnected from the rest of the code - particularly since it's just a definition of what "outside the building" means, isn't explicitly linked to any other code references, save, *230.32 *which (with *230.43*) allows ANY of our typical wiring methods (EMT included) to protect SE conductors from physical damage. And the 230.32 reference to 300.5 ONLY refers to _underground_ SE conductors.

Thoughts? Hopefully I'm not beating a dead horse here - went back several pages of threads and didn't see a similar discussion so...


----------



## goose134 (Nov 12, 2007)

Don't have the book in front of me, but isn't the 5 foot distance justification? 
We've had to encase conduit to within 5' before. 










Are you saying that the five feet should be encased as well?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Nowhere in art. 230 is 5' used. Art. 230.70(A)(1) states


> the service disconnects means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either inside or outside of a building or structure or inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors.


That being said many areas have amendments that allow 10', 5' etc. It is really an AHJ call on the distance. Certainly the concrete as shown by Goose is sufficient, IMO.


----------



## Krummholz (Feb 9, 2011)

goose134 said:


> Don't have the book in front of me, but isn't the 5 foot distance justification?
> We've had to encase conduit to within 5' before.
> 
> 
> ...


No, what I'm really saying is that I see no justification in the code for encasing it at all. Cool photo, btw. :thumbsup:

What I agree with is the inherent and potential danger of conductors like xfmr secondaries that aren't protected from overcurrent conditions. No arguments there. My problem is that the NEC just doesn't clearly and unambiguously word the circumstances where physical protection (like shown above) is needed and where it isn't, let alone provide any practical direction or guidance to electricians or inspectors on how much or when certain protections must be taken. 

To my knowledge, article 230-6, which merely defines what conductors are considered "outside a building," is referenced by no other section in the code, save 230-32. What is the point then in having a code section which [merely] defines (and that's all it does) what it means to be "outside a building" if that definition is referenced nowhere else in the code (save 230-32, which "or" in that section virtually precludes the need to go to 230-6 anyway)?

What I'd really like to see is something definitive in the code that outlines the need to provide extra protection, when, and how. I'd like to see something less ambiguous than what we have. I'm not satisfied with all the different rationalizations I've heard over the years why say, installations like the above are necessary.

Hope that makes sense .


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Krummholz said:


> What I'd really like to see is something definitive in the code that outlines the need to provide extra protection, when, and how. I'd like to see something less ambiguous than what we have. I'm not satisfied with all the different rationalizations I've heard over the years why say, installations like the above are necessary.



As Dennis pointed out 230.70(A)(1) is it.

As you can see even RMC can't keep the service conductors contained.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Krummholz said:


> No, what I'm really saying is that I see no justification in the code for encasing it at all. Cool photo, btw. :thumbsup:
> 
> What I agree with is the inherent and potential danger of conductors like xfmr secondaries that aren't protected from overcurrent conditions. No arguments there. My problem is that the NEC just doesn't clearly and unambiguously word the circumstances where physical protection (like shown above) is needed and where it isn't, let alone provide any practical direction or guidance to electricians or inspectors on how much or when certain protections must be taken.
> 
> ...


As Bob and Dennis have already pointed out, 230.70(A)(1) already states that the service disconnecting means must be located outside or inside *nearest the point of entrance* of the service entrance conductors. So by a strict reading of the NEC service raceways can never be run inside of a building at all, period, ever. So now 230.6 comes into play and states that if the service raceways are encased in at least 2" of concrete then they are considered outside of the building and therefore 230.70(A)(1) is not violated.

Chris


----------



## goose134 (Nov 12, 2007)

That's a nice explanation. The 2" of concrete simply means they are considered outside.


----------



## goose134 (Nov 12, 2007)

Nice pics Bob. I can only assume that the splatters on the wall are solidified splatters of the briefly liquid conduit. I've seen some blow ups before, but that one is a doozy.


----------



## Krummholz (Feb 9, 2011)

goose134 said:


> Don't have the book in front of me, but isn't the 5 foot distance justification?
> We've had to encase conduit to within 5' before.
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe I see this now...


raider1 said:


> As Bob and Dennis have already pointed out, 230.70(A)(1) already states that the service disconnecting means must be located outside or inside *nearest the point of entrance* of the service entrance conductors. So by a strict reading of the NEC service raceways can never be run inside of a building at all, period, ever. So now 230.6 comes into play and states that if the service raceways are encased in at least 2" of concrete then they are considered outside of the building and therefore 230.70(A)(1) is not violated.
> 
> Chris


What you're saying is that in the above installation (for example) the service entrance conductors don't [_*technically*_] enter the building until they exit their concrete encasement.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Krummholz said:


> What you're saying is that in the above installation (for example) the service entrance conductors don't [_*technically*_] enter the building until they exit their concrete encasement.


Exactly


----------



## ratrod56 (Jan 21, 2011)

[/quote]


What caused this? maybe insulation damaged during installation and finally self destructed....Either way thats some good money at salvage


----------

