210.25(A)

Status
Not open for further replies.

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
This proposal is a result of the following discussion. Comments are welcome.
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=140198

Proposal:
Branch circuits originating in each dwelling unit shall supply only loads within that dwelling unit or loads associated with that dwelling unit. Branch circuit wiring associated with each dwelling unit shall not pass through another dwelling unit, except within adjoining walls or common areas such as attics, crawl spaces, or mechanical chases.
Substantiation:
It is not clear whether multi-family dwelling units can comply with the present wording of this article. It may be interpreted that in the context of this article, the wall that adjoins two units is ?in? both units. Thus, if there is a circuit originating in Unit A and serving a receptacle in Unit A side of the common wall, the conduit within the common wall is ?in? Unit B, in violation of this article. Since 210.52 would require receptacles on both sides of the common wall, there is an unresolvable conflict within the NEC.

There are two separate concerns involved in this article. One concern is that a tenant wishing to turn off an outlet for repair or maintenance should not have to go into a neighbor?s unit to find the breaker serving that outlet. The other concern is that a tenant wishing to remodel their unit, including the removal of an internal wall, should not encounter a conduit from a circuit that originates and terminates within a neighbor?s unit, but that passes through their unit. The proposed revision clearly prohibits both situations.
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
OK, time for me to start attending those meetings again. I mean the meetings of the EDA, ("Engineers Against Dyslexia"). :slaphead:
 

jumper

Senior Member
Back on topic: are you saying that wall outlets that are required for both units on a common wall would be a violation? Or are you addressing a nuisance and/or safety aspect?
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Back on topic: are you saying that wall outlets that are required for both units on a common wall would be a violation?
It sure seems like it could be, it is that mysterious 'in' that is troublesome. :cool:
 

jumper

Senior Member
It sure seems like it could be, it is that mysterious 'in' that is troublesome. :cool:
These installs have always been speced for me, so I have really thought about this.

Guess I should if I have to ever make the call.

Good thread. Now I gotta think about it.:thumbsup:
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Back on topic: are you saying that wall outlets that are required for both units on a common wall would be a violation? Or are you addressing a nuisance and/or safety aspect?
I am attempting to address an apparent conflict between two separate requirements in the code. I don't see any safety implications.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
I think the issue is whether the wall is inside the dwelling. I don't see it that way. It may be part of the dwellings but it is not inside the dwelling as 210.25(A) is now written. I don't see a need to change it, however I see your concern.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
I think the issue is whether the wall is inside the dwelling. I don't see it that way. It may be part of the dwellings but it is not inside the dwelling as 210.25(A) is now written. I don't see a need to change it, however I see your concern.
So when would you say the section does apply?
 

jumper

Senior Member
I am attempting to address an apparent conflict between two separate requirements in the code. I don't see any safety implications.
I could.

Say I am Joe DIYer, I turn off my main breaker and start to remodel. If a wire/cable/conduit is encountered in MY wall, it is de-energized in my mind. Oops and sparks.

Just a thought.
 

hurk27

Senior Member
I would like to point out that we must differentiate between a intended rental unit and or sold units (condos) where there will be a deed issued that should show the boundaries of the owned property and if there is common ares, While running branch circuits or feeders "in" another separately metered dwelling should be limited even in rental units, it will be in some cases almost impossible to avoid in all cases and adjoining wall is one of those places, while some types will have a true fire wall between each unit that would not allow accessibility to the other units conductors but not all state and local codes require them,

(what I mean is what I call a true fire wall is a party wall where you have two independent stud wall with 5/8" drywall between them on the back side of each units party wall if a fire causes one side to fail and fall down the other side will still stand and protect the other unit)

But the above is recognized in the code as a separate structure and in this the code restricts us from being able to run feeder or branch circuits in or through another structure.

There are so many variables with this I can see why it will be hard to write a "one size fits all" code section for this problem.

With that said I think this does not even belong in article 210 other then maybe a FPN to a place in 230.3 or a new 230.4 and or 225 which is where I believe these requirements need to be placed addressing that any feeders or branch circuits originating from one metered service should not feed or pass through any building or structure that is fed from another service or meter with exceptions to the allowances of 230.2 (A) (C) (D) (E).

Even the stance that the NEC places on conductors as outside a building in 230.6 should not be allowed since it could be a problem when someone wants a inside sunken hot tub installed.

But getting a change of this magnitude written up would be hard for this code cycle
 
Last edited:

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Charlie, I think you'd have a better chance for an accept, if you took the other tack with this. I believe the intent is to prevent having to break into Tenant B's unit to shut off a receptacle.

There are a great number of times that branch circuit wiring from other panels enters a tenant's unit, and I don't think it is their intent to hinder them all. What about wall packs for exterior lighting, or porch lights from a central location, or floor outlets? Your proposal is sweeping and goes beyond 90.1(A), IMO.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
So when would you say the section does apply?
I think they are saying that you cannot have a circuit originate in one tenants space and feed an outlet in the next unit. Seems silly that we need to know that but I can see someone doing something like that.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
I think they are saying that you cannot have a circuit originate in one tenants space and feed an outlet in the next unit.
I don't think that is what it says at all, it says nothing about were the supply originates from.

Part B does but we are talking about part A.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
I believe the intent is to prevent having to break into Tenant B's unit to shut off a receptacle.
George, where do you find the words in 210.25(A) to support that limited view?

210.25 Branch Circuits in Buildings with More Than
One Occupancy.

(A) Dwelling Unit Branch Circuits. Branch circuits in
each dwelling unit
shall supply only loads within that dwelling
unit or loads associated only with that dwelling unit.
And isn't access to the breaker addressed by other code sections?

240.24 Location in or on Premises.


(B) Occupancy.
Each occupant shall have ready access to
all overcurrent devices protecting the conductors supplying
that occupancy, unless otherwise permitted in 240.24(B)(1)
and (B)(2).
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
George, where do you find the words in 210.25(A) to support that limited view?
You're right, (B) covers my concern.

Here's a panel statement declaring their intent:
Panel Statement: The common area branch circuit requirements for two family dwellings had this provision added by the panel in lieu of the potential that an occupant could have the service meter disconnected by the utility company for a variety of reasons such as vacancy or non payment, or by having the branch circuit internally disconnected.
They don't want the disconnection of a tenant to kill house loads. How the wiring gets there doesn't seem to concern them, IMO.
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
This proposal is a result of the following discussion. Comments are welcome.
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=140198

Proposal:
Branch circuits originating in each dwelling unit shall supply only loads within that dwelling unit or loads associated with that dwelling unit. Branch circuit wiring associated with each dwelling unit shall not pass through another dwelling unit, except within adjoining walls or common areas such as attics, crawl spaces, or mechanical chases.
Interesting problem.

So, Charlie, this proposal says that all the Premises Wiring (System) installs that have the individual dwelling unit branch circuit OCPDs outside of each dwelling unit have no restriction on how the branch circuit is routed.

I work on a lot of two story duplex dwelling units that are wood framed, with attic and full basement. Each dwelling has a unique street address. There is no fire separation between upper and lower dwellings. There is one service drop from the PoCo, there are two electrical meters outside and there are two service centers in the basement. The basement is a common area with the laundry, furnaces, water heaters, storage, etc. There is no "house" panel for the common areas.

After reading the earlier thread, and this thread,
I am troubled by the restrictive interpretations being discussed. If I add a new branch circuit from the basement panel for the upper dwelling unit, 210.25 might cause (depending upon enforcement) some really silly excess work to have a compliant branch circuit route, in a two dwelling occupancy that has existing wiring running willy nilly.

As I am understanding this conversation, the restrictive branch circuit routing that Bob (IWire) describes causes new wiring additions in existing multidwelling occupancies to be exponentially more difficult, and expensive, for no other reason than the turn of phrase in 210.25.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top