No Service Disconnecting Means?

[bobster789]

I have a friend who is asking about a transfer switch for his house for a portable generator.

His house was built in 1966. Service conductors come overhead, into a meter enclosure mounted on an exterior wall.

The 100 amp main panel inside the structure contains a 100 amp circuit breaker used as a main disconnect. However, this "disconnecting means" is NOT "inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors".

The main panel is on an interior wall in a utility room. Between this interior wall and the exterior wall where the meter box is the kitchen. Service conductors are routed up the wall from the meter box, across the attic, and down the wall to the panel. Probably 30 conductor feet total.

So the "disconnecting means" is at least 20 feet inside the structure from where the service conductors enter.

Isn't this a violation of 230-70(a)? How did this ever pass inspections in the first place?

 

[MAC702]

There is no disconnect at the meter outside, before the conductors go to the inside panel? It doesn't have to be a circuit breaker. Can you post a picture of the meter area?

 

[bobster789]

There is no disconnect at the meter outside, before the conductors go to the inside panel? It doesn't have to be a circuit breaker. Can you post a picture of the meter area?

That is correct. I'll post a pic shortly (have to figure out how first)...

 

[bobster789]

Here is a picture:

Box to the right is Telco, to the left cable company...

 

[ActionDave]

Code compliant or not it's time for a service upgrade.

 

[user 100]

Probably 30 conductor feet total.

So the "disconnecting means" is at least 20 feet inside the structure from where the service conductors enter.

Isn't this a violation of 230-70(a)? How did this ever pass inspections in the first place?

While the section in 230 does say "nearest", there is no set length per code and it is open to interpretation. Some areas say 5ft inside building; others 10'- that may have been legitimately compliant per the AHJ at the time of installation in '66.

Code compliant or not it's time for a service upgrade.

:happyyes:

 

[MAC702]

Code compliant or not it's time for a service upgrade.

You'd think maybe the utility would have their people look for stuff like that when they swapped in the smart meters if they now thought it was a big deal. :?

 

[user 100]

You'd think maybe the utility would have their people look for stuff like that when they swapped in the smart meters if they now thought it was a big deal. :?

The POCO prolly couldn't care less- they only care about their meter- Anything beyond that point is the customers problem.

Heck, most of the larger outfits just subbed the swaps out to an IC- those guys sole mission was cut seal, pull meter, jam meter in, reseal.

 

[ActionDave]

You'd think maybe the utility would have their people look for stuff like that when they swapped in the smart meters if they now thought it was a big deal. :?

All of the meter swaps here were done by independent contractors. We got a bunch of jobs cleaning up the damage they did on old services.

Also, utilities are staffed by linemen mostly. Those are good guys, (I'm related to a couple of them) but they are not at all fussy about electrical. If it's not blowing up then it's good in their world.

 

[ActionDave]

The POCO prolly couldn't care less- they only care about their meter- Anything beyond that point is the customers problem.

Heck, most of the larger outfits just subbed the swaps out to an IC- those guys sole mission was cut seal, pull meter, jam meter in, reseal.

Are you a mind reader?

 

[user 100]

Are you a mind reader?

:lol:

Holy crap-I see that I actually edited and posted as you were about to post essentially the same thing at the same time!!

No ouija board hoodoo voodoo type stuff going on- I swear

 

[bobster789]

Code compliant or not it's time for a service upgrade.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but could you elaborate on the reasons?

 

[bobster789]

While the section in 230 does say "nearest", there is no set length per code and it is open to interpretation. Some areas say 5ft inside building; others 10'- that may have been legitimately compliant per the AHJ at the time of installation in '66.



:happyyes:

Granted, there is no set length, but for anyone with a clue about the intent of "nearest", I can't imagine how 20-25 feet (of unprotected service conductors) inside could ever have been considered as OK.

That's why I'm asking - thinking there might be something else I'm missing...thanks!

 

[bobster789]

You'd think maybe the utility would have their people look for stuff like that when they swapped in the smart meters if they now thought it was a big deal. :?

The days of expecting peeps (or POCOs) to go above and beyond (to the customer side of service point) are but a fond, distant memory, IMO...and I'm not sure how knowlegeable POCO employees are supposed to be on NEC...

 

[ActionDave]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but could you elaborate on the reasons?

There is nothing in your pic that screams danger it's just that people will change the siding, roof, countertops, cabinets, furnace, fridge, washer, dryer and everything else on their house and not touch the electrical.

That looks like a 1980 or so service and at some point it needs an upgrade even if there wasn't a transfer switch going in. Bonus would be that you could power the hot tub from a breaker outside, that is if it's not in the 110.3 work space.

 

[MAC702]

The days of expecting peeps (or POCOs) to go above and beyond (to the customer side of service point) are but a fond, distant memory, IMO...and I'm not sure how knowlegeable POCO employees are supposed to be on NEC...

Good point; I guess I was just thinking it should have been an instinct to tell a subcontractor doing this (and they had to be some sort of "electrician," right?) to keep an eye out for old services that having something obviously wrong with them.

But I also guess if you are doing 50+ meters per day, you really would get into a zone and not notice a single thing outside of the meter socket, even if told to.

But, yeah, the NEC stops at the meter, but then again, wouldn't they have a vested interest in lines running through a structure whose means of protection might be their xformer on the pole?

 

[user 100]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but could you elaborate on the reasons?

Its old- thats a 100a MS. And since you have an issue with the disconnect distance, why not just get rid of the relic and get a shiny new cheap MMC and refeed the MLO in the house from that.

Granted, there is no set length, but for anyone with a clue about the intent of "nearest", I can't imagine how 20-25 feet (of unprotected service conductors) inside could ever have been considered as OK.

That's why I'm asking - thinking there might be something else I'm missing...thanks!

You're not missing anything- but again different areas have different rules. Yes, I agree, thats a lot of unfused wire to be inside of a house, but in all seriousness, as long as nothing is ever "compromised", its fine.

 

[bobster789]

But, yeah, the NEC stops at the meter, but then again, wouldn't they have a vested interest in lines running through a structure whose means of protection might be their xformer on the pole?

I could see the HO having an interest, but the POCO is gonna put liability on whoever installed and inspected the weatherhead & meter box, I would think...

 

[bobster789]

Its old- thats a 100a MS. And since you have an issue with the disconnect distance, why not just get rid of the relic and get a shiny new cheap MMC and refeed the MLO in the house from that.



You're not missing anything- but again different areas have different rules. Yes, I agree, thats a lot of unfused wire to be inside of a house, but in all seriousness, as long as nothing is ever "compromised", its fine.

I guess if there's ever a fire, the firefighters are gonna use the meter as a "disconnecting means"?

 

[Mark A.]

Is that a hottub?