feeding loads in one building from another (albeit connected)

[mshields]

Doing a project on a site that consist of 2 mixed use medical buildings connected via a common ground floor. But that floor has a fire wall separating the two buildings and all floors above are separated by a literal gap between the two. i.e. there is no question that they are two separate buildings. They are owned by the same entity but I don't think that matters.

Owner wants to put room with vacuum pump and air compressor into one building (it will serve both) and feed it from the other.

I know this is a concern for the fire department and I believe it's a code violation. But specifically, which NEC sections does it violate?

Thanks,

Mike

 

[ritelec]

hmmm........................ if I own my house and the house next door. (each has their own service drop).. can I run a circuit from one house to the other ?
hmmmmm...if I own my house and someone else owns the house next door(each have their own service drop), can i run a circuit from my house to his?



With the op scenario.. one building with fire wall....... is there one service area that feed both buildings from that service area? Or two separate services, one on either side of the fire wall?
If that makes a difference.

 

[skeshesh]

Why do you believe it's a violation? Can you elaborate on why the fire marshal is concerned?

 

[electrofelon]

225.30 jumps to mind, but that is not your situatuon and I don't think there is an NEC restriction against serving a building with a service and a feeder/branch circuit.

 

[Sahib]

I think I read that the code stipulates all service equipment for a building shall be located in same place and if not possible, details to be displayed at each service equipment location. That may be solution here. But Iam not sure about it.

 

[petersonra]

Doing a project on a site that consist of 2 mixed use medical buildings connected via a common ground floor. But that floor has a fire wall separating the two buildings and all floors above are separated by a literal gap between the two. i.e. there is no question that they are two separate buildings. They are owned by the same entity but I don't think that matters.

Owner wants to put room with vacuum pump and air compressor into one building (it will serve both) and feed it from the other.

I know this is a concern for the fire department and I believe it's a code violation. But specifically, which NEC sections does it violate?

Thanks,

Mike

What code says that a firewall has to turn it into two buildings? It is if it is under separate ownership but if it is the same ownership maybe not.

 

[kwired]

hmmm........................ if I own my house and the house next door. (each has their own service drop).. can I run a circuit from one house to the other ?
hmmmmm...if I own my house and someone else owns the house next door(each have their own service drop), can i run a circuit from my house to his?





With the op scenario.. one building with fire wall....... is there one service area that feed both buildings from that service area? Or two separate services, one on either side of the fire wall?
If that makes a difference.

I agree ...

What code says that a firewall has to turn it into two buildings? It is if it is under separate ownership but if it is the same ownership maybe not.

Depends on reasons why it is set up the way it is.

Have been allowed in the past (or seen cases where others were allowed the same thing) when putting a major addition onto a facility to feed the addition with it's own separate service. This usually requires two hour separation between the separate "buildings" to even consider having the second service in the addition. When doing so it also means no circuits from one "building" can enter the other "building" unless they would have a disconnecting means at/near point of entry and are included in directories that identify disconnecting means and their locations.

 

[mshields]

225.30

225.30

Indeed 225.30 does spring to mind as does 230.2, it's "sister" paragraph for services. I think the wording particularly of 230.2 leaves something to be desired insofar as it gives exceptions to their being only one service and proceeds to list things that are by no definition services themselves; by chapter 1 definition, a service comes from the utility.

Still the intent seems clear; namely that you can have, in addition to a service to a building, a feeder for any one of the branches of the generator distribution system. Building A already has that in the form of a generator dedicated to it. Building B has it's own 2 generators. So we'd be coming off Building B's generator distribution system to feed these two circuits. Can you, to stretch a point, have numerous generator inputs to the building. Actually I think you can. I can think of laboratory buildings I'm familiar with, with numerous tenants each with their own generator.

I've come to the conclusion that if we bring two branch circuits over that would be a violation since it is neither covered by 225.30 nor 230.2. But if we bring a single feeder in from building B's Equipment Branch system AND we have a disconnect where it enters into building A AND we add signage such that the fire department knows where all the disconnects to kill all power to the building are, then we'll be ok.

Thanks for all the input.

 

[skeshesh]

Indeed 225.30 does spring to mind as does 230.2, it's "sister" paragraph for services. I think the wording particularly of 230.2 leaves something to be desired insofar as it gives exceptions to their being only one service and proceeds to list things that are by no definition services themselves; by chapter 1 definition, a service comes from the utility.

Still the intent seems clear; namely that you can have, in addition to a service to a building, a feeder for any one of the branches of the generator distribution system. Building A already has that in the form of a generator dedicated to it. Building B has it's own 2 generators. So we'd be coming off Building B's generator distribution system to feed these two circuits. Can you, to stretch a point, have numerous generator inputs to the building. Actually I think you can. I can think of laboratory buildings I'm familiar with, with numerous tenants each with their own generator.

I've come to the conclusion that if we bring two branch circuits over that would be a violation since it is neither covered by 225.30 nor 230.2. But if we bring a single feeder in from building B's Equipment Branch system AND we have a disconnect where it enters into building A AND we add signage such that the fire department knows where all the disconnects to kill all power to the building are, then we'll be ok.

Thanks for all the input.

In medical complexes, it is common to have a central emergency system that distributes power to more than one building. I'm thinking of a particular case at a university medical center where both branch circuits and feeders travel between buildings. These buildings did not even share a common ground level and where seismically separated. Utility tunnels were used to run the feeders and branch circuits as well as other utilities (steam, water, data, etc). I've not heard state health officials nor the fire marshal take exception to this case.

I'm going to dig a little deeper into this one later tonight. Not sure why I never really questioned that particular installation, but it could have been a violation that was never caught.

 

[electrofelon]

What code says that a firewall has to turn it into two buildings? It is if it is under separate ownership but if it is the same ownership maybe not.

If you look at the NEC definition of building, it seems pretty clear to me.

I've come to the conclusion that if we bring two branch circuits over that would be a violation since it is neither covered by 225.30 nor 230.2. But if we bring a single feeder in from building B's Equipment Branch system AND we have a disconnect where it enters into building A AND we add signage such that the fire department knows where all the disconnects to kill all power to the building are, then we'll be ok.

Thanks for all the input.

I would agree.