Question: Residential Service Upg

[Jerramundi]

Replacing an existing 100A Service for a new 100A Service... old Pushmatic that needs to go.

Not possible to route the SE Conduit on the exterior of the building to behind the panel and in.
Going into the building and then running maybe 10 ft before hitting the panel.

My question is, are there "SE rated junction boxes" that could be installed on the interior? Would this be okay?
I can't find anything that says it wouldn't be... except for... maybe the fact that there are accessible SE conductors before the main disconnect....

I've encountered this before and utilized an LB... which I made sure met Working Space requirements and remained accessible...
(that is, no hidden LB buried in the joist space... ahh memories, lol).

And it seems akin to commercial/industrial applications that utilize LBs on the interior.
Maybe I'm just stressing too much about a potentially future finished room and an LB on the interior just being awkward.
Thought if there was an "SE rated junction box" that it would look cleaner if the room ever got finished.

Thoughts? Thanks in advance!

 

[al hildenbrand]

Your OP title says that the building is "residential". So if the building meets the 2020 NEC Article 100 definition of dwelling unit, then a new rule, 230.85 Emergency Disconnect, has to be applied. -- That is, if your area is on the 2020.

 

[Jerramundi]

Your OP title says that the building is "residential". So if the building meets the 2020 NEC Article 100 definition of dwelling unit, then a new rule, 230.85 Emergency Disconnect, has to be applied. -- That is, if your area is on the 2020.

Yes, thank you. I'm aware of this change... and I can understand the reasoning behind it and support it. But I appreciate the reminder.

I suppose that would resolve the issue of the "accessible" SE conductors on the interior... as opposed to your typical installation concealing them in a continuous conduit until they exit the building.

Still curious about the whole "SE rated junction box" thing, though.
Is it being "SE rated" something I've conflated with something else?
Could say, a normal 10" x 10" junction box be adequate (assuming what I'm calling "large wire box fill" checks out)

Or am I just being weird because it's a conduit body on the interior of a residential basement...
and any other building (commercial or otherwise) wouldn't bat an eye at an exposed conduit body on the interior of the building (obviously).

 

[LarryFine]

Why not use an access panel?

 

[Jerramundi]

Why not use an access panel?

Like a finished drywall access panel... which allows access to the conduit body?

If that's what you mean, then yes, I've considered it... but just thought there might be a cleaner way like a 3-1/2" d x 10 x10 junction box or something.
Just not something I've ever done in my Residential experience... used a square box that it is.

I've done conduit bodies in unfinished basements for services before, and probably will again this time, I was just curious.

 

[LarryFine]

Yes. They come in square and rectangular. There's one you don't even have to make a clean hole for or glue a frame to the wall.

Everbilt 8 in. x 8 in. Adjustable Spring Loaded Plastic Access Panel APS8 - The Home Depot

Keep unsightly connectors hidden with this spring fit access panel. Safely stow plumbing, spa pumps, wires and cables for residential and commercial applications. Constructed with durable white polystyrene,

www.homedepot.com

Acudor Products 6 in. x 9 in. Plastic White Wall or Ceiling Access Door PA0609 PA-3000 6 x 9 - The Home Depot

The Acudor PA-3000 Plastic Access Door is designed to provide easy access to walls and ceilings. The high impact styrene plastic with U.V. stabilizers will not fade or corrode. The door is completely removable from the frame and fits tightly with snap latches. The white finish, with textured...

www.homedepot.com

 

[al hildenbrand]

Is it being "SE rated" something I've conflated with something else?

Of the three options in 230.85, if you choose to make the emergency disconnect the Service Disconnect including the Main Bonding Jumper then the wiring to the interior panel becomes a Feeder, already having overcurrent protection. So there is no Service Equipment rating required for a pull box.

 

[al hildenbrand]

And, if the Emergency Disconnect is not the Service Disconnect, then the bonding of the conduits and the pull box to the Grounded Service Entrance Conductor is the extra detail. Or using something like Meyer's Hubs.

 

[LarryFine]

There's still the "nearest the point of entrance" requirement for service conductors.

I would try to use use PVC to avoid bonding.

 

[Jerramundi]

Of the three options in 230.85, if you choose to make the emergency disconnect the Service Disconnect including the Main Bonding Jumper then the wiring to the interior panel becomes a Feeder, already having overcurrent protection. So there is no Service Equipment rating required for a pull box.

Interesting point about the "SE Conductors" becoming "Feeders" if you make the "Emergency Disconnect" the "Service Disconnect."

I have some questions about this... but I don't want to digress, so I will loop back around in a later post.

I will NOT be doing this.
I will be installing (1) "Emergency Disconnect" in the Meter and (2) "Service Disconnect" in the Main Breaker Panel

But nonetheless interesting that you say those are now "Feeders" and "...So there is no Service Equipment rating required..."

 

[Jerramundi]

Of the three options in 230.85...

Also... do you mean 230.82? Did this move post 2014??

 

[Jerramundi]

Would "the conductors" from...
(1) The Meter, Exterior (w/ Emergency Disconnect) to (2) Main Breaker Panel (w/ Service Disconnect), Interior...

...be considered "Service Entrance Conductors" if I choose to call the Disconnect at the Meter the "Emergency Disconnect" ONLY and then, they are still technically on the supply side of the "Service Disconnect" in the Main Breaker Panel, Interior and thus, any junction box used would require said "Service Equipment Rating?"

 

[LarryFine]

Doesn't the location of the service OCPD determine which is the service disconnect?

I.e., switch vs breaker/fused switch?

 

[Jerramundi]

Doesn't the location of the service OCPD determine which is the service disconnect?

I.e., switch vs breaker/fused switch?

This is one of the questions I was going to loop back around to.
I see it/the discussion so far as...

Option #1) Emergency Disconnect at Meter... Service Disconnect at Main Panel (as per the usual)
... w/ Grounding + Bonding Requirements at the Main Panel (as per the usual)
... w/ Grounding + Bonding Requirements at the Meter done according to 230.82 as it's still on the Supply Side

Option #2) Emergency AND Service Disconnect at the Meter........................

Emergency Disconnects are still relatively new to me.
I honestly wouldn't even know if you called the Emergency Disconnect the Main Disconnect as well...
Would you then run those "Feeders" to a Main Lug Only Panel?

The idea of NOT having the Service Disconnect at the interior Main Panel bugs my poopy pea brain... and I'm honestly not even sure is this allowable.
But I do understanding the logic behind adding an Emergency Disconnect at the Meter for First Responders.

 

[Jerramundi]

If my understanding is correct, basically, everything remains nearly the same, only with the addition of one breaker at the Meter now being called the Emergency Disconnect... the conductors going into the building are STILL Service Entrance Conductors.

It's when you call that the Emergency Disconnect + Service Disconnect that those conductors become "Feeders" and now require an EGC, etc.
Still unclear about some of the other details... like if these would/could be run to a Main Lug Only Panel... since your Service Disconnect is now outside at the meter.

Yes?

 

[curt swartz]

The idea of NOT having the Service Disconnect at the interior Main Panel bugs ... and I'm honestly not even sure is this allowable.
But I do understanding the logic behind adding an Emergency Disconnect at the Meter for First Responders.

That makes absolutely zero sense. Being in California we always have service disconnects at the meter. I get why it may be weird to some now having to have an exposed disconnect but if you have to have a disconnect on the outside why not have over-current protection there? I would much rather have over-current/short circuit protection for the conductors running through the building .

 

[Jerramundi]

That makes absolutely zero sense. Being in California we always have service disconnects at the meter. I get why it may be weird to some now having to have an exposed disconnect but if you have to have a disconnect on the outside why not have over-current protection there? I would much rather have over-current/short circuit protection for the conductors running through the building .

Different. Not weird. And again, completely understand/support the idea of a disconnect outside for first responders.

What's truly "weird" to me... is the thought of an "Emergency + Service Disconnect" Outside... but NO Main Breaker inside... or am I missing something regarding what's being discussed? Again, still relatively new to Emergency Disconnects...

 

[curt swartz]

In my part of the country main lug loadcenters are the norm. The suppliers and big box stores stock very few main breaker load centers. The only time they get use are for detached building that require a service disconnect. We generally use combination service entrance devices that have a meter socket, main breaker and distribution so everything that leaves the service is a feeder or branch circuit. The NEC adding the emergency disconnect is basically aligning the rest of the world with what we already do her in the West.

 

[Jerramundi]

In my part of the country main lug loadcenters are the norm. The suppliers and big box stores stock very few main breaker load centers. The only time they get use are for detached building that require a service disconnect. We generally use combination service entrance devices that have a meter socket, main breaker and distribution so everything that leaves the service is a feeder or branch circuit. The NEC adding the emergency disconnect is basically aligning the rest of the world with what we already do her in the West.

Interesting... other than sub panels in say, a garage... I would never think to NOT have a Main Breaker Panel.
The idea of having to run outside to flip the Service Disconnect bugs me.
Functionally, I think it makes more sense to keep the Service Disconnect at the Main Breaker Panel.

But again, totally understand the idea of an Emergency Disconnect outside for first responders. Makes total sense, IMO.

 

[Jerramundi]

In my part of the country main lug loadcenters are the norm. The suppliers and big box stores stock very few main breaker load centers. The only time they get use are for detached building that require a service disconnect. We generally use combination service entrance devices that have a meter socket, main breaker and distribution so everything that leaves the service is a feeder or branch circuit. The NEC adding the emergency disconnect is basically aligning the rest of the world with what we already do her in the West.

So in your case, the previously "Service Entrance Conductors" are now "Feeders" running to a Main Lug Only Panel... ??