2nd service not related to the structure

[chevyman26]

Wondering if anyone has any info on legality of having a 2nd service mounted on a structure that is not related to that structure?
We have a existing bunkhouse that has it's own underground service. We are building some moveable "cabins" that we would need to feed from a separate service for other reasons, but cannot put our service on the Utility's pole, and setting a new pole is wildly expensive here and just don't have the room for another pole. Also we don't want to mount the new service on any of the cabins as there is a good chance they will move again. We are thinking of mounting the new service on the backside of the existing bunkhouse which is right beside them, maybe 25'-30' away from the first one. I know you can't have 2 services to the same structure except for a couple exceptions, but as this new one won't be serving that structure...? Should be ok?
I will be asking the Utility if they have any issues with it of course, and we are in very rural Alaska where there is no actual AHJ in the area. We will be inspected by OSHA and a few other annual inspections we go through, and I just want to make sure we're not doing anything unsafe/illegal.

Thanks for any help that can be given!

 

[augie47]

Are the service drops, overhead ?
Is there an outside disconnect on the existing service ?

 

[chevyman26]

Are the service drops, overhead ?
Is there an outside disconnect on the existing service ?

The new drop will be overhead, the existing is underground (comes from a different direction.)
Yes there is an outside disconnect on the existing service.

 

[RWC/NC.]

I'm probably going endure certain amount of regret responding, in having to reference an illustration in 2020 Handbook (AKA one man's opinion) reference on page#131 EXHIBIT#230.7 / NFPA70, Chapter 2, Article 230, Section 2: Number of Services. (B) Special Occupancies: *By special permission, additional services shall be permitted for either of the following. (B)(2) Multiple-occupancy building(s) where there is no available space for service equipment accessible to all occupants. Talking in consideration, possibilities it could be more than one person per cabin unit.

 

[zbang]

Is the new drop going to be attached to the existing building? That could certainly cause confusion unless everything is very well marked.

How will this new service connect to the cabins? Overhead? Underground? Temporary on the ground?

 

[RWC/NC.]

I'm probably going endure certain amount of regret responding, in having to reference an illustration in 2020 Handbook (AKA one man's opinion) reference on page#131 EXHIBIT#230.7 / NFPA70, Chapter 2, Article 230, Section 2: Number of Services. (B) Special Occupancies: *By special permission, additional services shall be permitted for either of the following. (B)(2) Multiple-occupancy building(s) where there is no available space for service equipment accessible to all occupants. Talking in consideration, possibilities it could be more than one person per cabin unit.

Excuse me, I have a misprint above, (small keyboard)..230.2(B)(1)

 

[chevyman26]

Talking in consideration, possibilities it could be more than one person per cabin unit.

This is indeed the case. Each cabin will have 4 separate rooms each with their own entrance from the outside.

Is the new drop going to be attached to the existing building? That could certainly cause confusion unless everything is very well marked.

Yes it is, and that is one of my main concerns. We will be ordering engraved phenolic signage for both services. In this case the existing service is closer to 1 end of the building nearest the exit door on that end. The new service would be on the far end of the building (building is 200' long) and separated from the exit door on that end by an existing chain link fence. I realize none of that matters if there is a 2:00 AM emergency and someone is in a panic...

How will this new service connect to the cabins? Overhead? Underground? Temporary on the ground?

That's still up for debate. I would like to go underground, the powers that be want to just go temporary on the ground. But I know how that turns out usually so when it starts coming together I believe they will just wake up one morning to a trench with some PVC laid in it. That's the nice thing about having 20+ hours of daylight.

 

[Ravenvalor]

Is the new service small enough to put on a 6 x 6 driven in the ground 1' away from the bunkhouse?

 

[chevyman26]

Is the new service small enough to put on a 6 x 6 driven in the ground 1' away from the bunkhouse?

I believe the Utility wants it to be overhead so I don't know if they would approve that for strength. It will be a 200A service meter/distribution combo box. If they are ok running it underground that would be an ideal scenario. I've been trying to get a hold of them for the last week, their guy that I need to talk to is notoriously hard to get a hold of.
Ultimately we will most likely do what they want us to do short of setting a new pole. I was just curious about the legality of this route as my boss is really pushing this direction, and regardless of how we end up doing this install I thought this may be a good topic for discussion.

 

[augie47]

I don't see much of a way around 230.2 and 230.72.
An option might be a 2nd disconnect for the cabins at the existing service disconnect ... depending on the load, the present POCO underground might handle it or they might upgrade for you.

 

[packersparky]

I realize this will not be a popular opinion, but 230.2 states: "A building or other structure served shall be supplied by only one service unless permitted in 230.2(A) through (D).

The building that the 2nd service is attached to is not being "served" or "supplied" by the 2nd service.

Just my two cents.

 

[robertd]

The new drop will be overhead, the existing is underground (comes from a different direction.)
Yes there is an outside disconnect on the existing service.

The new drop will be overhead, the existing is underground (comes from a different direction.)
Yes there is an outside disconnect on the existing service.

Can you have the messenger cable that supports the service run from the pole to the existing building, but have the service conductors drop off a few feet from the building? Build the new service on a 4x4 or 6x6 post with conduit and masthead.

 

[electrofelon]

I realize this will not be a popular opinion, but 230.2 states: "A building or other structure served shall be supplied by only one service unless permitted in 230.2(A) through (D).

The building that the 2nd service is attached to is not being "served" or "supplied" by the 2nd service.

Just my two cents.

I agree and was going to say the same thing. I don't see any issue.

 

[RWC/NC.]

Chevyman26, in reading your first posting (no AHJ & possibilities no AKOSH) you had made mention of OSHA.. Are you currently on location of United States Government Property(?).. ..Curious but, not trying "get all up into your business"..

 

[chevyman26]

packersparky said:
I realize this will not be a popular opinion, but 230.2 states: "A building or other structure served shall be supplied by only one service unless permitted in 230.2(A) through (D).

The building that the 2nd service is attached to is not being "served" or "supplied" by the 2nd service.

Just my two cents.

I agree and was going to say the same thing. I don't see any issue.

This was my interpretation of it too, but wanting to make sure I'm not missing anything...

Chevyman26, in reading your first posting (no AHJ & possibilities no AKOSH) you had made mention of OSHA.. Are you currently on location of United States Government Property(?).. ..Curious but, not trying "get all up into your business"..

No, just in a remote fly-in or boat-in only village. I should have said AKOSH rather than OSHA. We do get annual visits from them (we invite them in to be sure we are doing things correctly) but on the invited visits I've noticed they tend to be a little more lax in their inspections. I suppose I could question one of their inspectors on this...not really their everyday wheelhouse though.

An option might be a 2nd disconnect for the cabins at the existing service disconnect ... depending on the load, the present POCO underground might handle it or they might upgrade for you.

2 things on this - I wish this were the case as we own the existing service. Our power is brought in to a sectionalizer at the front of our complex at 24,570V and splits out to 5 separate transformers around the facility feeding each building. The POCO won't touch anything on our property after the sectionalizer for that service. So we wouldn't even need to worry about any of this except:
When we leave for the winter (we work seasonally) we have that service turned off. This last winter we had some issues that could have been prevented with some small heaters and ventilation, so in addition to feeding these cabins the new "small" service will feed some temporary heating/ventilation units in an area of the main plant. We do have a local person that does "Winter Watch" for us so we'd feel comfortable leaving some small units running.

So I guess in reality the cabins aren't the issue, but the need for a smaller service is and the POCO happens to have a place to drop from right where the cabins are going so we were going to kill 2 birds with 1 stone.