230.3

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kentaylor04

Member
nec 230.3 applied to mult.family dwelling
does this mean that service entance conductors
connot pass thur attic space above other apts.
 
Re: 230.3

Ken, in my opinion, 230.70(A)(1) and 230.3 are both telling you that you can't do that. Once you have gone through the service equipment, you no longer have service but are now dealing with a feeder. :D
 
Re: 230.3

occupants shall have access to disconnect ALL wiring in, and passing thru their premises. This means that if the attic is individually seperated, then the one occupant has the right to always and forever, turn off the power to the second occupant. Calling the service equipment "feeders" does not get around this problem. My understanding is that the requirment for disconnecting ALL power in a dwelling (including any other wiring passing thru it) must satisfy the 6 breaker rule, or six motions. Having disconnects located in seperate locations violates this.

without playing word games to try to find ways around this code item, theanswer is clearly "do not pass thru 2nd dwelling".

paul
 
Re: 230.3

quote
"occupants shall have access to disconnect ALL wiring in, and passing thru their premises. This means that if the attic is individually seperated, then the one occupant has the right to always and forever, turn off the power to the second occupant."

I disagree with your statement. Where does the NEC state that occupants have the right to disconnect all wiring in and passing thru their premises?

While this particular question related to multi-family, it is also a common practice in multi-tenant shopping centers, malls, etc.
Jim T
 
Re: 230.3

calling conductors "feeders" does not automatically seperate conducors into non-service conductors.

This whole topic has been argued so many times before that it is no longer worth arguing about. just make sure your liability insurance is paid up.

230.3 all of 230.70 as has been pointed out,

if the occupants are tenants, and do not own the premises, the wiring is in the same building and under management. If these are owned seperate buildings, you are required to make sure the provisions of "outside" are defined in 230.6

paul :D
 
Re: 230.3

Originally posted by apauling:
calling conductors "feeders" does not automatically separate conductors into non-service conductors.
Click to expand...
Actually it does, there are feeder conductors and there are service conductors. :D

Is there a third option?
 
Re: 230.3

we are talking about conductors feeding the main power and lighting panel boards in residences, if not a meter/main, the NEC description refers to all of that equipment as service equipment. In dwellings whatever feeds that equipment falls under 230.70 and all the various parts of the code that protect dwelling services, and whatever language you use to try to get around it might confuse some, but it ain't NEC compliant.

There is also the problem of having two services serving one dwelling, if in fact feeds from one service pass thru another bldg. This is too old to argue anymore. It's a moot point when it will take a law suit for you to change your mind. When it finds you, you won't be so arrogant about it.

paul :)
 
Re: 230.3

I think it's just a matter of the conductors being named by virtue of their definitions in Article 100.

Edit: third option, branch circuit :p

[ January 24, 2005, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
 
Re: 230.3

Paul
No one disagrees with the idea that service entrance conductors can't pass thru one building to get to another. If there are meters and disconnects on the building exterior, then the wiring isn't service anything. It is a feeder, and feeders are permitted to pass thru one tenant to get to another. Article 230 doesn't have anything to do with feeders.
Jim T
 
Re: 230.3

Jim (or anyone else),

Don't waste your time trying to argue this one with Paul. We've discussed this in nauseating detail before and the outcome of the argument is that nobody agrees with him. :roll:

Yes, it's true that local laws and buidling codes will support his argument but based solely on the NEC his argument doesn't stand up.
 
Re: 230.3

Paul,

The service conductors stop at the disconnect.

Multiple services have to be grouped.

230.91 says to put the service OCPD next to the diconnect, if the disconnect isn't the main OCPD.

I'm not sure where the problem is, language or otherwise.
 
Re: 230.3

i am not the only one holding my opinion. If indeed these are single dwellings, with rated wall between them, and one owner owns the space above, the NEC is not the only code to argue for what passes thru. ^he owner owns that space. it is not the right of any tenant to have their power, or even their water pass thru that space. Please show me where the NEC allows any electrical distribution from one service to pass thru another dwelling.

Ifyou actually read the last go-around, contractors install below 2" of concrete and bring the conduit up , not thru the attic. The more adamant you are in implying that i am the lone arguer, the more I disbelieve your other arguments. It may pass where you install, and it may be what you learned, and it may be complicated by dense pre-existing conditions, but it is by no means accepted in new construction in areas where dwellings are seperately owned, seperated by rated walls.

I think you guys are the same ones who argued about the "extra" outlets in kitchens and dining rooms. Since you have made it personal, and you have misrepresented the last re-hash of the argument, there isn't any reason for me to argue any further. you threw any actual integrity you had out with the personal overstatements.

paul :)
 
Re: 230.3

Paul,

The only thing personal about my contribution to the thread is that I addressed your post.

Please don't take it the wrong way. :)
 
Re: 230.3

physis; it was a broad stroke only meant for those it fit.

but, the definition of feeder is the last line between the source and the last overcurrent protection device. The last overcurrent protection device changes with any subsequent panelthat is added.

if you want to argue that, then you have to go to the handbooks, which support my contention that the NEC has considered one building feeding another to be comprised of "service equipment" to the point of last attachment, which was fed from the first building. When I pointed this out all the rah-rahers said that that wasn't the NEC. So it's fair for all CMPers to hash their points of view out but the NEC's own handbook is irrelevant? The definition of feeder isn't definitive enough to get around 230.3. All it takes is one more overcurrent protective device.

paul :)
 
Re: 230.3

Feeder. All circuit conductors between the service equipment , the source of a separately derived system, or other power supply source and the final branch-circuit overcurrent device .
Click to expand...
Service Equipment. The necessary equipment, usually consisting of a circuit breaker(s) or switch(es) and fuse(s) and their accessories, connected to the load end of service conductors to a building or other structure, or an otherwise designated area, and intended to constitute the main control and cutoff of the supply .
Click to expand...
Service Conductors. The conductors from the service point to the service disconnecting means.
Click to expand...
If we look at these three definitions it can be seen that a feeder is all the conductors between the service equipment and the final branch circuit OCPD's.

So we need to know what is this service equipment is? The definition say's it is the equipment that is used to cut off the main power supply to the building. so this is where the feeders start and service conductors end.

A meter socket is not service equipment. As per:

230.66 Marking.
Service equipment rated at 600 volts or less shall be marked to identify it as being suitable for use as service equipment. Individual meter socket enclosures shall not be considered service equipment.
Click to expand...
Meter sockets that also have the disconnect/OCPD in it is service equipment.

Paul I'm not disagreeing about conductors running through other properties. I just think it is spelled out in the NEC, where the service conductors start and end and where feeders start and end. ;)
 
Re: 230.3

the question is whether a lighting/power load center that is protected by a disconnect at the other end of the building of multiple occupants is part of the service equipment.

Again, i am not the sole proponent that it is, as the diagrams in the NEC handbook illustrate my point. Others were on my side in the cited rehash. You may argue that that is not the "CODE". It is also not clear, by definition in the codes (100.?) that your interpretation is correct. The interprtation that those lines are exempted from the pass thru restrictions is based on defining them as feeders without defining them as feeders from a seperate service. There are numerous restrictions on multiple services to the same structure. it is clearly the intent to restrict mixing services in the same structure, as generally it takes AHJ authority to bypass code limitations.

Nowhere in any of the illustrations or support material is there an indication of the argued installation.

I can accept that others hold views different than my own, but it is quite apparent that others can not, and must rely on personal attacks and misrepresentations, and group yahoo to support themselves.


paul :)
 
Re: 230.3

Paul this is why I do agree with you as not allowing the service disconnect to be located on another's property:

230.72 C) Access to Occupants. In a multiple-occupancy building, each occupant shall have access to the occupant?s service disconnecting means .
Click to expand...
If the disconnect is on someone else's real property you don't have a legal access to the disconnect. It would be trespassing. Of course the outside of this property could be common grounds which would be accessible by all.
 
Re: 230.3

Originally posted by apauling:
we are talking about conductors feeding the main power and lighting panel boards in residences, if not a meter/main, the NEC description refers to all of that equipment as service equipment. In dwellings whatever feeds that equipment falls under 230.70 and all the various parts of the code that protect dwelling services, and whatever language you use to try to get around it might confuse some, but it ain't NEC compliant.
Click to expand...
Paul lets put aside all the other issues and focus on your post above. :)

A couple of yes or no questions so we both understand each other. ;)


Is it you belief that article 230 applies to the conductors past the service disconnect?


Or is it your belief that service equipment includes all equipment suppling power?


Right now we are building a 120+ unit apartment building there is a main switch in the basement, from there large conductors feed meter stacks on each floor.

From the meter stacks to the apartment runs another set of conductors that feed a panel in the apartment.

In the above building here does article 230 stop applying in you opinion?

Bob
 
Re: 230.3

iwire: I assume that in the caseof apartments, that the attic space is not tenant divided, not accessible for storage by tenants, that the pass thru feeders are not in the same wiring wall and joist space that is used for the tenants wiring, and that individual apartment panels are the end of each feed, and that in an emergency, the wires that pass thru the upper space can be turned off, and therefore are completely within the scope of the NEC as far as i understand it.

paul :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top