Location of Service Main Disconnect

[david]

Re: Location of Service Main Disconnect

David, I think you are reading too much into the defintion of service and attributing too much wiring and equipment to it

bphgravity

Maybe, but it has already been well established that service conductors upon entering a building must land in a service disconnect, so if your right then there is no need for this rule in the book. If you are right then there is no way to supply one buildings service through another building.

?230.3 is prohibiting the service entrance conductors from passing through a separate building or structure before it lands at the meter enclosure or disconnect at the building it will serve?

If the rule was addressing service entrance conductors than it should have said service entrance conductors instead, it says service conductors which I have already defined



I never said I agree with the rule all I know is the definitions as I gave them are correct. When I apply the definitions to this rule I still conclude as I said through out this thread.

[ March 13, 2003, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: david ]

 

[iwire]

Re: Location of Service Main Disconnect

2002 NEC 230.3 One Building or Other Structure Not to Be Supplied Through Another

Service conductors supplying a building or other structure shall not pass through the interior of another building or other structure.

Article 100

Service Conductors
The conductors from the service point to the service disconnecting means.

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.

American Heritage? Dictionary

Through In one side and out the opposite or another side of.

With the definitions from the code book and the wording of 230.3 I believe the installation described above met the code as written, the service conductors did not pass through the building they stopped at the disconnect, what the intent of the CMP was is of no concern if it went in the book wrong they must fix it, inspectors can not enforce intent.

You might be able to apply 230.70(A)(1) service disconnect shall be readily accessible

But that could be over come by moving the disconnect outside, the feeders could still pass through the first building to the second.

I would think this would cover the state parks you described and the multi building office park Tom described.

The situation with the two houses, the owner of the house with the two disconnects could rip it out and leave the second house dead, it is not a good installation but I think it is NEC compliant.

[ March 13, 2003, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[rwp]

Re: Location of Service Main Disconnect

Yes, but....
Another 200A main disconnect will be required at the garage.

 

[hurk27]

Re: Location of Service Main Disconnect

This might be wrong but I was told one time long ago that the intent of the code was that the reasons we shouldn't run through a building is either because the wire does not have ocp or in the case of feeders coming from a deferent meter the problem of the owner having access to his wires/disconect in the event of needing to repair them. and of the fact that some dishonest person could connect onto them and get free power. But if the premises are under the same ownership then I could not see a problem

 

[david]

Re: Location of Service Main Disconnect

I wasn?t going to say any more on this subject, but I have one parting comment.

The Code is written as a whole there aren?t failsafe rules written just in case you didn?t get from another rule. In other words you might find in one section you are required to have a rec. in a bathroom and in another section you find that the rec. is required to
have GFCI protection for personal. I believe the rules supplement each other and build on each other.

I already pointed out that the NEC is clear that service entrance conductors entering a building have to land in a service disconnect. I do not buy that this is just a reminder that you cannot run unprotected service wires through a building. That has already been established. This rule may be in need of some exceptions. This rule would not be in the Code if it wasn?t saying something that was not already established else were in the Code.

 

[iwire]

Re: Location of Service Main Disconnect

David, I do not think it's a good idea to feed one house thru another.

But this condition evolved over time and if I was the one that had to pay for the reworking of the services I would want it very clear that it had to be done, many things are clearly a violation now, but can not be forced to up grade.

It was good talking to you.

 

[david]

Re: Location of Service Main Disconnect

Bob:
I only posted the house example because I thought it was a clear example of what this rule was designed to prevent. I was called to inspect this change of service; this was an inspection for the reworking of the service. Second this was an easy decision for me, this is one that the power co. in my area makes. In addition to the NEC rules on this the power co. will not energize a set up like the one I described.

Thanks to everyone for their input.

Larry:
Sorry if this pulled away from an answer that you were looking for. I would pass you service as you described it. I assumed you were asking your question based on this rule in the
NEC.

 

[rwp]

Re: Location of Service Main Disconnect

Its OK but......
A 200A main disconnect(like a service)will be required at the separate building.