code challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.

apauling

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

peter d: the definition of service is defined as delivery of power to a premises. That is in the definitions. If you will not read and concede that, there is no reason for discussion.

Whether you call the line from a remote disconnect a feeder or something else is irrelevant. When units are seperastely owned, each unit is a premises.

The reason why the underground feeds to seperately owned units, is that the code considers under 2" of concrete to be "outside" and therefore can pass under other units. What is not allowed is passing the power thru another unit.

no reason for you to keep asking the same ? peterd.

paul
 

peter d

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

no reason for you to keep asking the same ? peterd
Ok, we will have to agree to disagree then.


I do agree with you that just because something is done a certain way does not make it compliant.

Nonetheless, again barring local restrictions and laws , there is nothing in the NEC that disallows feeders from passing through separate structures. If you feel that strongly about it then you should propose a code change. :)
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Re: code challenge

Originally posted by apauling:
peter d: the definition of service is defined as delivery of power to a premises. That is in the definitions. If you will not read and concede that, there is no reason for discussion. paul
Paul the service and all of article 230 stops at the first disconnecting means after the utility connection.

A tenants meter and panel may be on the 50th floor but the service disconnect will be in the basement, the wires from the basement to the 50th floor are not a service, or service conductors and article 230 does not apply to them.

230.1 Scope.
This article covers service conductors and equipment for control and protection of services and their installation requirements.
Service Conductors. The conductors from the service point to the service disconnecting means.
 

coulter

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

ap -

A question: So, these conductors that extend from the first OCPD (remote mounted) to the panel; would you size the grounding conductor per 25.122, or 250.66?

carl
 

coulter

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

ap -

I agree with IW that after the first disconnect, everything is a feeder. That doesn't mean an installation doesn't require more that code minimums. Good engineering, good craftsmanship, and not wanting to have to keep looking over one's shoulder often require more than code.

And, for a single premisis, with multiple owners, there is a whole bunch of things that would need to be different from single owner, single premisis. What a nightmare. Routing the feeders is just one.

carl
 

apauling

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

iwire: service equipment may stop at the disconnect, but if the actual premises is remote, the "service" by NEC's definitions continues to the premises. A service drop may stop, but the wires feeding that premises are still considered service wires or were as of the 99 NEC. A building remote from the first disconnect requires the same accessibilty, max 6 motions for all off, etc. as the main disconnect.

In high rise bldgs the drop at the street rises protected to equipment areas and does not pass thru the space of other units unprotected.

Remember, the NEC is also saying that "outside" can be satisfied by various means of protection, 2" of concrete for one.

Merely because this is not enforced in some areas does not make it compliant.

a premises is where the electrical power is utilized, not a remote disconnect.

:p paul
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Re: code challenge

Paul I now see your confusion.

The premise is not the individual apartment or condo.

The premises is the entire building and land it sits on.


Premises Wiring (System). That interior and exterior wiring, including power, lighting, control, and signal circuit wiring together with all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices, both permanently and temporarily installed, that extends from the service point or source of power, such as a battery, a solar photovoltaic system, or a generator, transformer, or converter windings, to the outlet(s). Such wiring does not include wiring internal to appliances, luminaires (fixtures), motors, controllers, motor control centers, and similar equipment.
Service Point. The point of connection between the facilities of the serving utility and the premises wiring.
 

apauling

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

i know you guys have a financial stake in your point of view, and i know that extra protection is costly, but common exterior facades do not make a single premises, by themselves. :D
 

hurk27

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

Now that we know the difference between service conductors and premises wiring, What we don't know is when is a building considered a separate structure that will allow a separate service drop/laterals to be ran to it. What I do know is in most places when a mutable occupancy building is planed from the start to be sold off as individual units, fire laws will require separation between them with a 2 to 4 hour fire rated wall. This very requirement in most places is what will determine that the units are in fact a separate structure and meets the requirement to allow a separate service drop to each unit as if it was a stand alone building. This is what I meant when I said that we are not allowed to run conductors across the property that someone else own's.
This is not a strip mall under a single management where each unit is only rented/leased out.

Think of all the buildings in a small downtown area that are built against each other with no separation between them. How did they pass if they would not be considered a separate structure. But each building has it's own service drop, meter, and disconnect on it's own property.

I'm not saying that these buildings slip through as there are many inspectors who don't know property laws or fire laws that would allow these units to be treated as a separate structure. But when doing any mutable occupancy building that from the start in intended to be sold off as real property. You need to know these laws.
And questions need to be asked:
like will there be easements in the deed, or will you need to keep all wiring to each unit on each units property, Will there be common service and how will it be address to trespass upon the property of the owners of each unit to supply this lighting.
Wiring is not cut and dry just NEC rules and that's it. there are other laws that have to be address also. And the builders of these buildings must know this.
We are all here to learn and one way to back this up is if you have a lawyer already just give him a call and ask him about these property rights of owners when trespass is an issue.

Why do you think utility's are so strict about the owner giving up a easement to them when it is required to have a transformer at the house? if they didn't it would be trespass if they did it without this.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Re: code challenge

Originally posted by apauling:
For a dwelling, there must be a readily accessible disconnect (not remote at a service drop at some distant location on a building) that shuts off all power to that premises.

not confused nor pocket book biased

:D
Paul yes, you must have a disconnecting means it is not always the service disconnecting means.

You are mistaken about what a premises is and as usual you refuse to learn new things.

Read Wayne's post, you already touched on it a little. Fire walls can make side by side buildings separate structures or premises.

Without the firewalls a 50 unit condo building is one premises with one service and 50 feeders or 51 including the common panel. :D
 

peter d

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

Paul,

(not remote at a service drop at some distant location on a building)
Huh??? There is nothing in the NEC that forbids a remote service disconnect. Where are you coming up with this stuff??
 

apauling

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

peter d:i didn't say that there was any restriction on remote service drops, just that t5hey come with some requirements, especially for residential.

you are reading what you want into my statements, not what i am saying.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

Paul,

i didn't say that there was any restriction on remote service drops
Yes, you didn't say that. You said:

For a dwelling, there must be a readily accessible disconnect (not remote at a service drop at some distant location on a building)
So by your own words, the disconnect cannot be remote at a service drop at a distant location.

This argument is going nowhere, and Neal's question has been answered.
 

apauling

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

you are still only reading into what I said what you wanted me to be saying so that I would be wrong.

if I need to speak in lawyereze for you, speak it yourself. You added words and changed the sentence. The intent and meaning of what I said was clear. I did not say that remote disconnects were disallowed, but that they were not the disconnects that were required.

iwire: i am not confused nor refusing to learn. a quick look at page 132 of the 2002 nec handbook will show 2 pictures that clarify the intent of what I am saying. exhibit 230.14 & 230.15 and please notice that the conductors from the first disconnect to the second building are labeled service conductors :p

paul
 

peter d

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

Paul, your own words are on display for everyone to see since this thread started. I am not altering anything you are saying, everything is a direct quote.

iwire: i am not confused nor refusing to learn. a quick look at page 132 of the 2002 nec handbook will show 2 pictures that clarify the intent of what I am saying. exhibit 230.14 & 230.15 and please notice that the conductors from the first disconnect to the second building are labeled service conductors
Quoting handbook commentary is not going to win you any arguments on this forum.
 

apauling

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

peterd: where is the quote that says that i said that remote disconnects are forbidden?? I didn't say it. :p
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Re: code challenge

Paul

Please read the opening post

A contractor installed electric service to a new 2 unit condo. The 2 unit meter center with main overcurrent protection is on outside of the unit.Is it a code violation to run a feeder through basement of another owners condo to get to second unit? Using 2002 NEC any code section?
I have looked at your examples and they do not fit the subject of this thread. Anything after the main overcurrent protection is a feeder not a service.

If we forget about the subject of this thread and change the subject to a building that has more than one service, as exhibit 230.14 show I agree with you.

In order to have more than one service to one structure (exhibit 230.14) you would have to meet one of the sections of 230.2(B)(1) or (2)

It is possible with a townhouse that 230.2(B)(1) would apply.

Exhibit 230.15 has nothing to do with this thread as that is actually two separate structures.

Bob
 

apauling

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

Bob: my point with the 2 illustrations is to point out how a "feed" can pass from one point thru a building and still be outside the unit it passes thru. The 230.25 illustration is to point out that the NEC considers "feeders" that supply another building to be service conductors despite the fact that there is an obvious disconnect. The disconnect does NOT stop the feeders from being part of the service. So the definition of service is still delivery of power to the dwelling that utilizes it.

AND a condo is 2 seperately owned units with firewalls, etc. The wiring I have seen cannot intermingle on the common wall, there is no shared electrical that passes from unit to unit. A "feeder that passes from one unit thru another (thru one dwelling to another) needs to comply with the words and intent of 230.3.

This does not have to be done with 2 service drops, but the requirement is that the feed thru needs to follow the rules of 230.3. It needs to be protected, which was all my original post was about. An unprotected feeder that passes thru voids the electrical integrity of the pass-thru dwelling. A residence must be able to disconnect all power that is within it with no more than six motions, must be readily accessible. if some of the power is within another disconnect that may be locked, this is a violation of the NEC as the residents may not be able to disconnect all power to the unit.

This call may not be popular, may not be called in some areas with local practice, but is still the intent of the NEC.

Arguing about the definition of words that are not clearly defined by the NEC itself will leave us at loggerheads. That is why, again, i added the reference to exhibit 230.15.

I respect your opinions too much to get personal, but I think I am correct here and you are relying on past accepted practice.

This is an issue that is made more complex as apartment buildings are condominiumated.

One of my last jobs was a long list of violations (for a group of common houses) that had been missed by everyone, and it included this specific issue. As a matter of further perspective, this issue could not be resolved without a law suit. (it was in only in one of many units that it was obvious, and the inspector((s)) required seperate disconnects that remained unlocked and labeled on the outside of each unit, while ).

I would be very hesitant to assume that this issue will go away easily with the 10 year liabilty, that is scary.

paul
 

hurk27

Senior Member
Re: code challenge

By Paul: A "feeder that passes from one unit thru another (thru one dwelling to another) needs to comply with the words and intent of 230.3.
Not in a condo or other multiple occupancy building. It wouldn't be allowed at all.

In a newly constructed condo this would a trespass and could be made to be removed if it breaches the perimeter of the "owned" property which would be defined in the deed and ownership rules. And it wouldn't mater if it was encased in 10' of concrete or 20' under the unit. If the deed to the property shows that it is owned by the owner of the unit no feeders or any other utilities can breach these property lines if they supply another unit.
In most cases these property lines are drawn at each firewall. Where this gets sticky is when you have grade level units that have front and back yards with the property lines that run out from each firewall to a certain distance in front and back. It is in these cases that even the property under the unit is owned by the owner of the unit, and it is their property and if they are allowed to install a pool in their bylaws and there is a feeder ran across their property to feed someone else's unit it would be a trespass.
If they wanted to install a sunken hot tub in the living room and there is a feeder run across under the slab it would be a trespass. This would be just like if you had a regular house in a neighborhood and your neighbor had his service ran across your yard to get to his house you would have every right to have it removed unless there is a easement in the deed.
In large condos that are multi-floor multi-unit, there would be common property that would be own by a property owners association or a building management company that the property owner pay a monthly or yearly contract to maintain the building and grounds. in this case utilities would be ran in these locations and not breach the actual owned property lines.
If we look at 230.70(C) it clearly requires that "each occupant shall have access to the occupant?s service disconnecting means." This would be violated if the owner of a unit had to trespass upon the property of another unit to get to his disconnect. In a multi-floor multi-unit building there would be some kind of building management so that the exception to 230.70(C) would apply.

In strip malls many will have a defined area for parking in the front and for deliveries in the back that will be owned and maintained by the owner of that unit. (This was the case in the example I posted earlier) The same rules apply.
This even goes for trees. If unit "A" has a tree in their yard and it has branches that hang over into unit "B" yard, unit "B" can ask unit "A" to remove them. And if unit "A" refuses then unit "B" can have them removed and send the bill to unit "A"

Of course this all depends upon local or state property rights laws.

Oh by the way I would agree with what your saying if this was rental units and the property was under one ownership. :D
But that wasn't what the poster's question asked.

[ December 03, 2004, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top