Anyone ever been required to mount a service disconnect on the outside of a house?

[henney]

The service in question has a meter base immediately below the mast at the front of the house. The service conductors are then run in SCH 40 along the outside of the house for about 20 feet, then through an LB into the basement. There is an inaccessible crawl space about 8 feet wide between the LB and the basement wall, and the conductors run through this space in SCH 40, then immediately terminate in the panel.

The inspector apparently interprets the 8 foot section of conductor/raceway to be a violation of 230.70A, and wants the homeowner to mount a disconnect on the outside of the house. This seems like insanity to me, but then I primarily do commercial work. Anyone else ever encountered this?

 

[Ponchik]

He is correct.

230.70(a)(1)
(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.

According to his interpretation 8' is not nearest point of entrance.


You can wrap that conduit with 2" thick concrete or encase it with brick and you will comply with 230.6. But i would rather install the disconnect on the outside.

Doesn't your utility require your disconnect on the outside anyway?

 

[infinity]

If the service entrance condcutors are on the outside of the house then they can be run for an unlimited distance. Once they penetrate the crawl space they're no longer outside of the house so the service disconnect would likely end up adjacent to the meter and a 4 wire feeder would feed the panel.

 

[henney]

"Nearest the point of entrance" doesn't seem to be clearly defined in the NEC. A strict reading of the rule would require a straight nipple into any panel from the meter base, and this is most certainly not always the case. Washington, where I usually work, allows 15 feet inside the house before requiring a disconnect.


A disconnect is not required on the outside of a house here. The main breaker on the panel is all that is required for a service disconnect.

Thanks for the response!

 

[infinity]

"Nearest the point of entrance" doesn't seem to be clearly defined in the NEC. A strict reading of the rule would require a straight nipple into any panel from the meter base, and this is most certainly not always the case. Washington, where I usually work, allows 15 feet inside the house before requiring a disconnect.


A disconnect is not required on the outside of a house here. The main breaker on the panel is all that is required for a service disconnect.

Thanks for the response!

You're correct, in the NEC this length is undefined. It's up to the AHJ to set what distance is permitted. IMO 15' is far too long for unprotected service entrance conductors to enter a dwelling.

 

[rodneee]

seeking the truth

seeking the truth

"Nearest the point of entrance" doesn't seem to be clearly defined in the NEC. A strict reading of the rule would require a straight nipple into any panel from the meter base, and this is most certainly not always the case. Washington, where I usually work, allows 15 feet inside the house before requiring a disconnect.


A disconnect is not required on the outside of a house here. The main breaker on the panel is all that is required for a service disconnect.

Thanks for the response!

i think i may find the golden fleece before i ever get the correct answer on this one...to answer your question, i have encountered this firsthand in early 80's... of 300 units in a development 1/3 required exterior mounted disconnect...fast forward 2007, 68 similar units no exterior disc used....2008, 92 same style units disc required...2011 150 same style units (40 miles away) no exterior disc used...please research this and report back to me with your findings...

 

[cmreschke]

In the op's question I in turn have a question. Not sure but would the conductors from d/c to panel have to be sized for feeders now on top of fourth conductor? It would not be service feeders now correct?

 

[ptonsparky]

In the op's question I in turn have a question. Not sure but would the conductors from d/c to panel have to be sized for feeders now on top of fourth conductor? It would not be service feeders now correct?

Look at 310.15(B)(7) "...The feeder conductors to a dwelling unit shall not be required to have an allowable ampacity rating greater than their service-entrance conductors. ..."