Outdoor Disconnect

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gbellomy

New User
Location
Austin, Texas
Occupation
Design/builder
Does NEC allow an outdoor disconnect to be recessed into a wall to minimize its visual impact? I'm building a wood frame house with 2x6 exterior walls and the client would like not to see the box and conduit on the exterior wall.
 
If it's a service disconnect, the service conductors would not normally be allowed recessed both by NEC & POCO rules.
 
qcroanoke said:
I did not know that. Code reference please?
Click to expand...
230.71(A)(1) requires the disconnect to be installed nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors. If the panel is recessed, I assume the service conductors are behind the finish of the building, making them inside the building, and the service disconnect may not be "nearest the point of entrance" as defined by your AHJ. This is another subjective rule in the code and what "nearest" means varies widely.
 
How does that mesh with the very common practice of using semi-flush 3R panels here on the West Coast? They are even a listed product. I realize that things are done out here may be iffy or plain contrary to code like cord & plug connected attic mounted gas fueled furnaces but it's interesting & enlightening to hear comments from others about said practices.
 
norcal said:
How does that mesh with the very common practice of using semi-flush 3R panels here on the West Coast? They are even a listed product. I realize that things are done out here may be iffy or plain contrary to code like cord & plug connected attic mounted gas fueled furnaces but it's interesting & enlightening to hear comments from others about said practices.
Click to expand...
That common practice would get a violation notice from me as I see it as a clear violation of the code requirements Not sure why the code rule is overlooked out there.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
That common practice would get a violation notice from me as I see it as a clear violation of the code requirements Not sure why the code rule is overlooked out there.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't nearest mean ground level for a service lateral? Also, I think you meant 230.70(A)(1). Note: That section appears to allow the service disconnecting means inside the building or structure.
 
Last edited:
don_resqcapt19 said:
That common practice would get a violation notice from me as I see it as a clear violation of the code requirements Not sure why the code rule is overlooked out there.
Click to expand...
It's been done since the late 1950's, which does not make it right, but has a pretty good record.
 
norcal said:
It's been done since the late 1950's, which does not make it right, but has a pretty good record.
Click to expand...

What difference does it make if the service disconnect is allowed inside in the first place? The service conductors out here on the west coast are generally installed in metallic raceways within the finish to the meter can and service disconnect located on the outside of the building/structure.
 
The rules for installing service entrance conductors inside a building vary greatly by jurisdiction. Unfused service entrance conductors have distance limits, restriction on raceway type, and special rules on bonding.
 
Xptpcrewx said:
Wouldn't nearest mean ground level for a service lateral? Also, I think you meant 230.70(A)(1). Note: That section appears to allow the service disconnecting means inside the building or structure.
Click to expand...
Yes it does...but only where the disconnect is nearest the point of entry of the service conductors. I read that as you enter the building and the service conductors directly enter the service equipment or run up or down directly into the service equipment. Again this is a very subjective rule and "nearest" has as many different meanings as there are AHJs.

In many cases local amendments have been written to define how far the service conductors can run inside a building. Our local amendment allows 10' of service conductor between the point of entry and the terminals of the service equipment and also requires that the service conductors be in rigid steel conduit.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Our local amendment allows 10' of service conductor between the point of entry and the terminals of the service equipment and also requires that the service conductors be in rigid steel conduit.
Click to expand...
For a CA-style flush residential service panel, a 10' allowance would suffice for an underground service, or an overhead service on a one story building. So I'm not sure why you say that "would get a violation" from you. Unless you feel the 10' allowance is too lenient, and it should be less?

Of course, this debate hinges on what the meaning of "inside" the building is. A building has multiple boundary layers--bulk water, weather resistive barrier, air barrier, thermal barrier, etc. A minimalist definition would be inside all of the above, i.e. the actual usable space of the building. A maximalist definition would be inside any of the above, i.e. as soon as you penetrate the siding.

So the difference between California practices and practices elsewhere may be as simple as differences in the idea of inside. I do agree that from a fire safety point of view, the maximalist definition makes the most sense to me.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top