Thread: Conduit and box covered with stucco

Single family home built in 97. Usually do not see the conduit covered with stucco or the box covered, usually surface mount. Is this acceptable.

Similar Threads:

• Commercial: Stucco interface with flat work
• Flex Conduit
• Hot tub conduit
• Stucco
• More Stucco question

This is a recessed installation, cleaner and acceptable.

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

Single family home built in 97. Usually do not see the conduit covered with stucco or the box covered, usually surface mount. Is this acceptable.

Originally Posted by Tom Thompson

This is a recessed installation, cleaner and acceptable.

"Is this acceptable."

No.

It may make a "cleaner" installation, but it is not acceptable.

The enclosures are designed to be, and required to be, installed with a 1/4" air space between the back of the enclosure and the surface of the wall.

Ah I didn't think about that. From what I can find and determine, the conduit is fine.

Main service panels are commonly recessed in CA. leaving the panel 1/4" off the interior surfaces isn't a problem, 2x6 walls allow the panel to be flush. Manufactures make both recessed or flush mount weather proof panels. Your local codes may differ but I doubt it.

A number of this type of meter and breaker combination type enclosures are listed for "semi-flush" installation, and some come with flange for stucco installations.

It appears from what I see in other forums that about half of California has meter/panel combos installed like this.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

A number of this type of meter and breaker combination type enclosures are listed for "semi-flush" installation, and some come with flange for stucco installations.

It appears from what I see in other forums that about half of California has meter/panel combos installed like this.

If those are as shown in the photos, how does that address the service entrance conductors being "inside" the structure for the length that they are before reaching the service disconnect?

Do the "semi-flush" enclosures allow for the conduit to be "outside" the structure?

Bill, do you have a few links to those enclosures? (Enclosures "made to be" semi-flush mounting.)

They used to mount them that way in Palm Beach Count in South Florida until it was pointed out that the installation of the enclosures violated the NEC in various ways and that the enclosures were not - at least back then, this was 20-25 years ago - listed for that type of installation.

I fond out that 'just because it was being done that way frequently' did not make it correct in any way.

Jerry here is one but I have seen others that are meter main combo that have the same semi/flush kit available.



Technical Library - Schneider Electric Schneider Electric

this is the info on other eqipment notice some have the semi/flush kit available.

http://static.schneider-electric.us/...PL0401CSED.pdf

Originally Posted by paul hardy

Jerry here is one but I have seen others that are meter main combo that have the same semi/flush kit available.



Technical Library - Schneider Electric Schneider Electric

this is the info on other eqipment notice some have the semi/flush kit available.

http://static.schneider-electric.us/...PL0401CSED.pdf

Paul,

Thank you for that link, included in that information lies one of the problems with semi-flush mounting: "Various mounting depths also help conceal larger service entrance conduit", which is one of the problems I pointed out with semi-flush mounting - that the service entrance conductors "enter the structure" at the bottom of that wall, and with many (most?) AHJ limiting the TOTAL LENGTH of the service entrance beyond the point of entrance to 5 feet or less, I can see a problem there.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Paul,

Thank you for that link, included in that information lies one of the problems with semi-flush mounting: "Various mounting depths also help conceal larger service entrance conduit", which is one of the problems I pointed out with semi-flush mounting - that the service entrance conductors "enter the structure" at the bottom of that wall, and with many (most?) AHJ limiting the TOTAL LENGTH of the service entrance beyond the point of entrance to 5 feet or less, I can see a problem there.

Semi-flush mounting is the way things are done here (CA), like it or not & EVERY new home built in a subdivision will have UG service (State law) & nobody in their right mind uses a surface mount panel in new construction.













These are a couple of bad examples of 100A services w/ 3" conduit (PoCo requirement). These houses (6) have very poorly installed wiring that "passed" inspection. The 3" steel coupling is listed for rigid & EMT (pictured) but not PVC which is concealed in the coupling

Originally Posted by Rollie Meyers

Semi-flush mounting is the way things are done here (CA), like it or not & EVERY new home built in a subdivision will have UG service (State law) & nobody in their right mind uses a surface mount panel in new construction.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Thank you for that link, included in that information lies one of the problems with semi-flush mounting: "Various mounting depths also help conceal larger service entrance conduit", which is one of the problems I pointed out with semi-flush mounting - that the service entrance conductors "enter the structure" at the bottom of that wall, and with many (most?) AHJ limiting the TOTAL LENGTH of the service entrance beyond the point of entrance to 5 feet or less, I can see a problem there.

And the comment about the above is ... ????

Do you, or do you not, see a problem with there those service entrance conductors (the underground service lateral in the riser) as to their "point of entrance" into the structure and how much conductor length there will be to reach where the conductors are going?

It's not a matter of whether I like it or not, or whether you like it or not, it's a matter of what the code allows and requires, and the fuzzy parts between the two.

Actually, I can see that meeting the code to keep the unfused conductors "as short as practical", especially for combination service/metering. Since the utility company sets the minimum height of the socket it would be hard to not have a few feet in the building envelope just to get the meter height required. I have seen more unfused cable in a dwelling fed from overhead services into meters in a basement.

Rollie,

Originally Posted by Rollie Meyers

& nobody in their right mind uses a surface mount panel in new construction.

I forgot to ask this: Why do you say that?

Down here, no one in their right mind would do it as you show it in your photos.

First, the problem with the service entrance conductors, second would be a problem with trying to seal around that recessed enclosure so that it would not leak, thirdly is the missing insulation in the wall, (the list could continue) ...

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Rollie,



I forgot to ask this: Why do you say that?

Down here, no one in their right mind would do it as you show it in your photos.

First, the problem with the service entrance conductors, second would be a problem with trying to seal around that recessed enclosure so that it would not leak, thirdly is the missing insulation in the wall, (the list could continue) ...

Semi-flush panels have had a long history here (At least late 1950's w/ Cutler-Hammer XO's). I have not heard of any issue w/them,in all these years as they are a factory assembly not a site hacked abortion. At the time those pics were taken insulation was irrelevent at the time, since the rough HVAC,plumbing,& electrical had not even started. Panels are always set early to allow lath for stucco or siding to be done,depending on where panels are set, wood / "wood product" siding is used on the front & stucco on the side walls & rear of the home. (Or all stucco) are common as brick is rare,& cheesy vinyl is not used much here.

Your comment is valid in some duplexes in the same subdivision though, I was disgusted w/ surface mount 2-gang meter cans mounted semi-flush w/o any type of factory kit to make it semi-flush, sealing was done w/ very sticky adhesive tape that I doubt will last the life of the equipment.

Here is another semi-flush panel.

I love the look of the semi-flush meter enclosures and would accept them all day long (if they were available or installed up here in the great white north) with one requirement: that the service lateral was installed in rigid metallic conduit.
"Equal or better" and meeting the intent, in my opinion as the AHJ.
I also would require the lateral raceway to extent out of the footing for servicing and/or replacing the conductors, if one were to expect my 'special permission'.
I did notice a previously concealed electrode attachment in the wall.

The common method is to put a ring & blank cover to access the connection.

Originally Posted by bob smit

I love the look of the semi-flush meter enclosures and would accept them all day long (if they were available or installed up here in the great white north) with one requirement: that the service lateral was installed in rigid metallic conduit.
"Equal or better" and meeting the intent, in my opinion as the AHJ.
I also would require the lateral raceway to extent out of the footing for servicing and/or replacing the conductors, if one were to expect my 'special permission'.
I did notice a previously concealed electrode attachment in the wall.

Why RMC? I've seen determined homeowners run nails and screws through virtually every substance known to man. And, I've seen the results of faulted service conductors in both RMC and PVC. There's a lot less shrapnel from the PVC once the fault penetrates the conduit and the damage is easier to fix.

This type of installation looks safer to me than using a PVC riser external to the structure that is subject to the mad attacks of an idiot and his solid blade weed wacker.

Originally Posted by bob smit

I love the look of the semi-flush meter enclosures and would accept them all day long (if they were available or installed up here in the great white north) with one requirement: that the service lateral was installed in rigid metallic conduit.
"Equal or better" and meeting the intent, in my opinion as the AHJ.

How is being in rigid metal conduit "Equal or better" than the code requirement? (bold and underlining are mine)
- 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 structurein a raceway that is encased in concrete or brick not less than 50 mm (2 in.) thick
- - - (3) Where installed in any vault that meets the construction requirements of Article 450, Part III
- - - (4) Where installed in conduit and under not less than 450 mm (18 in.) of earth beneath a building or other structure

The requirement using a raceway (of unspecified type but includes rigid metal conduit) is encased in not less than 2 inches of concrete ... so how is using just a raceway not encased in 2 inches of concrete equal???

I did notice a previously concealed electrode attachment in the wall.

I noticed that too and suspect that is may be a connection to a concrete encased electrode, albeit one that likely would not be accessible later on. Then there is also the questionable manner in which the grounding electrode conductor is connected to the concrete encased electrode via connection to a non-approved piece of steel which is then connected to the concrete encased electrode - the steel rebar is not an approved grounding electrode conductor even though that is its purpose, nor is it a concrete encased electrode to which a proper grounding electrode conductor should be attached.

I never understood why some think that Rigid Metallic Conduit is a cure all and a way to get around the code

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

How is being in rigid metal conduit "Equal or better" than the code requirement? (bold and underlining are mine)
- 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 structurein a raceway that is encased in concrete or brick not less than 50 mm (2 in.) thick
- - - (3) Where installed in any vault that meets the construction requirements of Article 450, Part III
- - - (4) Where installed in conduit and under not less than 450 mm (18 in.) of earth beneath a building or other structure

The requirement using a raceway (of unspecified type but includes rigid metal conduit) is encased in not less than 2 inches of concrete ... so how is using just a raceway not encased in 2 inches of concrete equal???



I noticed that too and suspect that is may be a connection to a concrete encased electrode, albeit one that likely would not be accessible later on. Then there is also the questionable manner in which the grounding electrode conductor is connected to the concrete encased electrode via connection to a non-approved piece of steel which is then connected to the concrete encased electrode - the steel rebar is not an approved grounding electrode conductor even though that is its purpose, nor is it a concrete encased electrode to which a proper grounding electrode conductor should be attached.

CA. code requires ground rods, foundation steel, gas and water piping be interconnected for grounding. The in wall ground clamps are accessible as a plaster ring with cover is required.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

the steel rebar is not an approved grounding electrode conductor even though that is its purpose, nor is it a concrete encased electrode to which a proper grounding electrode conductor should be attached.

90.4 Enforcement ……The authority having jurisdiction for
enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making
interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of
equipment and materials,

250.52 Grounding Electrodes……(3) Concrete-Encased Electrode. An electrode encased by at least 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete, located horizontally
near the bottom or vertically, and within that portion of a
concrete foundation or footing that is in direct contact with
the earth, consisting of at least 6.0 m (20 ft) of one or more
bare or zinc galvanized or other electrically conductive
coated steel reinforcing bars or rods of not less than 13 mm
(1⁄2 in.) in diameter,

Originally Posted by Tom Thompson

CA. code requires ground rods, foundation steel, gas and water piping be interconnected for grounding.

Do you have that code section?

I think you are mixing up "grounding" and "bonding", and that is done very often and is the root of much misunderstanding in the NEC.

The in wall ground clamps are accessible as a plaster ring with cover is required.

And making that connection accessible does not address the other issues I raised about that connection.

I believe you will find that the CA code allows the connection to be made in the concrete, as it should be, and to be accessible for inspection 'at the time of the inspection', then be encased in concrete - which is, by the way, why it is called a "concrete encased" electrode. The steel rebar sticking up from the concrete into the wall cavity is NEITHER a "concrete encased" electrode NOR a grounding electrode conductor.

It is not even a slick and cheap work around as the actual clamping of the grounding electrode conductor to the steel which is encased in the concrete is less expensive, all that amounts to is doing more work at a greater cost.

It boggles the mind why one would want to do MORE WORK ... AT GREATER COST ... TO DO IT WRONG?????

Originally Posted by Al Neuman

90.4 Enforcement ……The authority having jurisdiction for
enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making
interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of
equipment and materials,

What you meant to post, I am sure, is that section in its entirety, which does not say what you are trying to make that partial section say:
- 90.4 Enforcement.
- - This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations, including signaling and communications systems, and for use by insurance inspectors. The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules.
- - By special permission, the authority having jurisdiction may waive specific requirements in this Code or permit alternative methods where it is assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety.
- - This Code may require new products, constructions, or materials that may not yet be available at the time the Code is adopted. In such event, the authority having jurisdiction may permit the use of the products, constructions, or materials that comply with the most recent previous edition of this Code adopted by the jurisdiction.

The NEC SPECIFICALLY states what is allowed for use as grounding electrode conductor material - there is no gray area, no area which can be "interpreted" beyond what is SPECIFICALLY stated.

250.52 Grounding Electrodes……(3) Concrete-Encased Electrode. An electrode encased by at least 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete, located horizontally near the bottom or vertically, and within that portion of a concrete foundation or footing that is in direct contact with the earth, consisting of at least 6.0 m (20 ft) of one or more bare or zinc galvanized or other electrically conductive coated steel reinforcing bars or rods of not less than 13 mm (1⁄2 in.) in diameter,

Al, you need to READ what you post, especially when trying to say that a concrete encased electrode does not need to be encased in concrete and then you post a section which REQUIRES THAT THE ELECTRODE BE ENCASED IN AT LEAST 2 INCHES OF CONCRETE.

You really should not be throwing sections of the code around which you either have not read, have not read fully, do not understand, or do not understand fully.

Jerry,

The point that I was attempting with to make with my 90.4 was that You aren't the AHJ, and you cannot make any judgement as to the approval or disapproval ....... of anything.

As to the concrete encased electrode, there is MORE than 20' of the rebar encased in the footing. For instance, a ground rod used as a grounding electrode must be driven to a minimum of 8'....... but a 10' ground rod, driven to 8' will leave 2' of the rod exposed.


"Al, you need to READ what you post, especially when trying to say that a concrete encased electrode does not need to be encased in concrete"
I never said that, or implied as much.

It would seem to me that one end of a CEE sticking out so a wire can be attached wouldn't be a problem. As long as there is the required minimum of re-bar actually in concrete I don't see why there's an issue as to where the wire is attached. It is still part of the electrode even if not in concrete The wire has to be, after all, attached to re-bar somewhere. And, I suspect that in most cases the re-bar doesn't get removed in midnight raids like the wire does. The last 4 I installed before going to the exposed re-bar disappeared

I've had to resort to this type of CEE because the wire disappears long before there's framing to protect and hide it, and the AHJs don't have issues with it, in fact some insist it be done like this. Its pretty easy to make the point that after installing wire to access the CEE and then having it cut that the CEE is no longer accessible and therefore doesn't have to be used. AHJ would rather see the re-bar exposed. Some places it appears that concerns about the re-bar rusting off are addressed by using a regular ground rod as the connection and either cad-welding it to the re-bar or bending it so there is an overlap to tie the rod and re-bar together.

Here's one state's official view on the matter:
http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/f...electrodes.pdf

And another posted by the Pike's Peak Regional Building Dept:
http://www.pprbd.org/contfiles/ELEC%...FER%20DRAW.pdf

Originally Posted by Al Neuman

As to the concrete encased electrode, there is MORE than 20' of the rebar encased in the footing. For instance, a ground rod used as a grounding electrode must be driven to a minimum of 8'....... but a 10' ground rod, driven to 8' will leave 2' of the rod exposed.

Al,

Bad analogy.

The rod electrode electrode is a made electrode which could be made to ANY length, and AT LEAST 8 feet of the rod electrode is so be in direct contact with earth, the rod electrode is not required to be completely and totally in contact with earth, so the end MAY stick up for connection ... however, protection from physical damage would be required for any part of the rod electrode which does stick up above the earth.

The concrete encased electrode is ... well, an electrode encased in concrete, in fact, encased by at least 2 inches of concrete, otherwise it is not a "concrete encased electrode". The minimum length, either horizontally OR vertically of the concrete encased electrode is 20 feet.

Now we get to the connection to the grounding electrode by the grounding electrode conductor or the bonding conductor as follows: "The grounding or bonding conductor shall be connected to the grounding electrode by" (see 250.70), it does not state that 'the grounding or bonding conductor may be connected to anything handy which then connects to the grounding electrode' ... and being as that piece of vertical steel IS NOT part of the "concrete encased electrode" it may not be used as being anything handy to connect to.

The grounding or bonding conductor is required to be connected to the electrode itself. As such the connection point should be to the steel which is part of the concrete encased electrode, and that this must be done with a list connection for this use (they make the connectors which state that they are suitable for use with 1/2" rebar - which brings up another point ... that clamp in Rollie's photo looks like a clamp which is listed for "pipe" and not for "rebar" and that clamp itself would not be allowed in any of the places I've been across Florida and the Southeast.

Using "pipe" clamps for everything went out many years ago.

I agree - the pipe clamp doesn't fly around here either.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the installation as pictured.

The 1/4" space referred to is only for surface mounting, and has no relevance when the panel is set into the wall. The inside of the wall is not a 'wet location.' so the space need not be maintained.

There is no problem running the service conductors inside the wall as pictured either. Indeed, many subdivisions require such an installation. FWshen set in the concrete.IW, one can also find installs where an overhead drop comes in this same way.

As for the use of rigid, or schedule 80 PVC, it's not from any thought that these are somehow magic materials that waive code requirements. Rather, it's a material required by the PoCo for use in these installations, where the service exits the ground. I might remind all that it is the PoCo who is the AHJ here, and their standards apply.

Finally, ordinary rebar is a perfectly fine grounding electrode, whether set in concrete or used to construct any other form of grounding electrode. With the exception of a size stipulation for a made ground rod that is less than 3/4" thick, there is no listing requirement for the grounding electrode components.

The fact is, Ufer invented his electrode, specifically using the ordinary rebar of an ordinary slab. Max McComb doucmented the Ufer electrode using the ordinary rebar in tower bases. More recent studies have even shown the ordinary steel to outperform a copper wire.

Yes, Acceptable

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

Single family home built in 97. Usually do not see the conduit covered with stucco or the box covered, usually surface mount. Is this acceptable.

I need a good electrical box in stucco detail.
Anyone have a good detail to prevent electrical boxes in stucco from leaking.
I'm thinking of a 4x8 with a four gang mud ring and a four gang bell box cover with a gasket
Using bitchuthene to seal the building paper to the box behind the stucco and caulking where wires penetrate the box.
Anyone ever seen a single gang, two gang or any type of gutter box designed with a stucco flange and appropriate cover?

we typically install pressure treated lumber behind the size of the panel or like with the disconnects shown in these pictures.SAF install behind, install casing bead around the perimeter and drip cap with a weep at the top of the panel

For the smaller boxes there are numerous products like these:

https://www.warehousebay.com/catalog...10f74ed5f516a5

That type installation may be acceptable and practical there. It is acceptable here in South Florida but not practical because wood frame houses are not acceptable here and so they are recessed in block and or concrete. It is not practical here in South Florida because of the humidity. Every recessed can I have ever seen without exception has been mostly rusted away in a matter of a few years. The busbars also get extremely corroded in even less time. This is not limited to meters and panels, it also applies to any metallic boxes facing outward recessed in block or concrete. Sometimes even the metallic boxes that face inward are corroded.

As far as it being unfused and entering the house; most AHJ will allow this and to go one further most AHJ will even allow the unfused wiring run in conduit under the slab into the house and up into a main breaker panel. I know it does not meet the 5' rule but it is acceptable!

Furthermore, the AHJ typically adopts only the portions of the NEC that they interpret will cover the conditions of their respective regions. The NEC does not take into consideration environmental issues and so what works for one area may not for another and that is up to the AHJ to decide.

Originally Posted by Lou Romano

Furthermore, the AHJ typically adopts only the portions of the NEC that they interpret will cover the conditions of their respective regions. The NEC does not take into consideration environmental issues and so what works for one area may not for another and that is up to the AHJ to decide.

Depends ... depends on where you are ... as you are in Florida, Lou, the ENTIRE NEC is applicable as the ENTIRE NEC is applicable statewide - no picking and choosing what you want to use - that went out when the 2001 Florida Building Code came in.

Be that as it may Jerry, the reality of it is that the AHJ still picks and chooses. Call up City of Coral Gables or Miami-Dade County B & Z and ask the chief electrical inspectors! They will both tell you they'll allow it. City of Miami will too! Both the Villages of Pinecrest and Palmetto Bay will as well!

Doesn't meet NEC and never did, but it is still an acceptable practice in many areas.

Originally Posted by Lou Romano

Be that as it may Jerry, the reality of it is that the AHJ still picks and chooses. Call up City of Coral Gables or Miami-Dade County B & Z and ask the chief electrical inspectors! They will both tell you they'll allow it. City of Miami will too! Both the Villages of Pinecrest and Palmetto Bay will as well!

We shall see.

I just sent emails off to Miami-Dade County and to the City of Miami asking them to clarify the above.

I also tried to send an email to the City of Coral Gables, but their site keeps giving me errors, so I email their IT department with the error. After the error is corrected, I will email them too.

Let's see what they say, then I will check with the other two you mentioned.

I look forward to you sharing their replies with us.

Originally Posted by Lou Romano

Be that as it may Jerry, the reality of it is that the AHJ still picks and chooses. Call up City of Coral Gables or Miami-Dade County B & Z and ask the chief electrical inspectors! They will both tell you they'll allow it. City of Miami will too! Both the Villages of Pinecrest and Palmetto Bay will as well!

Doesn't meet NEC and never did, but it is still an acceptable practice in many areas.

Originally Posted by Lou Romano

I look forward to you sharing their replies with us.

This is my first response back: (underlining and bold are mine)

Hello, Mr. Jerry Peck. Please see the following response to your inquiry:
Miami-Dade County regulates construction by enforcing the adopted state-wide code, the Florida Building Code (FBC) 2007 edition with 2009 supplements. The FBC in Chapter 27, specifically 2701.1, states “Electrical components, equipment and systems shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of NFPA 70”. The edition of NFPA -70 currently being enforced is the 2008 edition. In addition to the FBC and NFPA-70, there are multiple referenced standards in the FBC, Florida State Statutes and Rules, Local Ordinances and Regulations, all applicable codes are enforced by Miami-Dade County to insure construction in Miami-Dade is safe and complies with current codes.
In addition to the State of Florida requirements that all code officials, including inspectors and plans processors, be licensed by the state and receive 8 hours of continuing education, Miami-Dade County requires an additional 8 hours or a total of 16 hours of state approved continuing education classes yearly. At least 4 hours of training are specific to the trade the code official is licensed in.
Miami-Dade County Department of Permitting, Environment and Regulatory Affairs continually strives to make our county an efficient and safe place to live.