Mandating Multiple Services

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dedbrk

Member
Location
Washington
I need some help. -Situation- "Multiple occupancy building with four tenants. All four tenants are under the same roof and inside the same structure. 2 hour fire wall seperates tenants down the center, two suites on each side of the fire wall. One service hits the exterior of building with one main disconnect. One 200 amp sub feeder goes to each tenant space from the exterior service, including penetration of firewall"-. Local AHJ is mandating a seperate and additional service for the two suites on the other side of rated wall. In short, one service for each two tenants. It is my understanding that you can do this if you wish due to the 2 hour wall which technically makes them seperate buildings, but it is not mandated. I know when you have two services in this manner there is certain rules to follow in order to proceed, what I didn't know was how it can be mandated. Any help in this matter would greatly be appreciated. Has anyone else had something similar happen to them?
 
dedbrk,

The building(s),if in fact,are considered to be two seperate buildings, then

the AHJ would be correct---225.30, 225.32

On the flip side,your installation is not that uncommon to see! That doesn't

make it right though.

Is this what you are after?
 
dedbrk,

As benaround put it, if in fact these are considered separate buildings, I believe 230.3 would apply:
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.
Click to expand...
The service conductors for the suites on the other side would have to meet the requirements of 230.6 Conductors Considered Outside the Building to be in compliance with the NEC.
 
Smart $ said:
if in fact these are considered separate buildings, I believe 230.3 would apply:
Click to expand...

No I don't believe that any of 230 applies to his existing situation.

One service hits the exterior of building with one main disconnect. One 200 amp sub feeder goes to each tenant space from the exterior service, including penetration of firewall"-.
Click to expand...

The conductors passing through are not service conductors they are feeders.

230 does not apply to feeders.
 
I see this as a growing issue, are these in fact seperate buildings?
If so is it permissable to have more than one service. How many meters are supplied??

Who pays the electric bill for the office suits??
 
I agree with Bob. Article 230 quits applying at the main disconnect.

This is a common installation in apartments and condos supplied from one service.

Ask the AHJ to cite a code reference. Perhaps they have a local amendment to the NEC requiring this.
 
A two hour fire wall is probably a legal fire wall. It creates 2 separate structures and if so the AHJ is correct, although I agree it happens frequently.

Many times the reason for the fire wall is because the space needs to be subdivided to avoid sprinklers, additional fire rated construction, etc. It is tough to argue that it ought to be considered 1 structure when the architect designed it to be 2 to get around some tough code requirement.

Jim T
 
four tenants

four tenants

The word tenants gives me the impression that these are rental units.
Is the buiding considered a single apartment building with common areas for all four tenants?
Is it condo's or town house's and maybe sparate rear yards, even though no fences exist.
I don't have enough information to even guess.
 
The MA building code defines a building (I'll paraphrase as I don't have my book) a structure separated from another by a fire wall. Not a fire partition. One is freestanding usually masonry, the other can be achieved with various ratings by various means. Gypsum over stud wall, typically. I posted on this some time ago, but couldn't find it with a search.

Interestingly the IBC does not share that definition. IBC defines building as "any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy".

I'd suggest first defining "building" in your jurisdiction, and then decide whether or not 2 services are required. If you follow IBC definition, it seems to me that you have one building and AHJ can't mandate another by nec.
 
j_erickson said:
I'd suggest first defining "building" in your jurisdiction, and then decide whether or not 2 services are required. If you follow IBC definition, it seems to me that you have one building and AHJ can't mandate another by nec.
Click to expand...

I agree that obtaining the definition of a building is appropriate, however the IBC is much clearer than first thought. If you look at the definition of building area you will find it is "the area enclosed by exterior walls or exterior walls and fire walls". Section 503, which specifies General Height and Area Limitations, also uses the same phrase "...exterior walls and fire walls where provided..."

A major purpose of fire walls is to create separate structures that otherwise would have stricter construction requirements, or wouldn't be allowed at all. I don't know how you can design a building as separate structures thru the use of fire walls to avoid stricter fire rated construction or sprinklers for example, and then claim they aren't really separate structures afterall.

JIm T
 
I'm with Iwire on this one.

If your inspector sited a violation, then he/she should have left a red tag with refer. and reason for that violation.

Get with your inspector on the ruling, maybe there's an exception.
 
jtester said:
A major purpose of fire walls is to create separate structures that otherwise would have stricter construction requirements, or wouldn't be allowed at all. I don't know how you can design a building as separate structures thru the use of fire walls to avoid stricter fire rated construction or sprinklers for example, and then claim they aren't really separate structures afterall.

JIm T
Click to expand...

I agree. MA is very clear as they define "building" as: "A structure enclosed within exterior walls or fire walls, built, erected, and framed of a combination of any materials, whether portable or fixed having a roof, to form a structure for the shelter of persons, animals or property"...... And goes on to say that "each portion of a building which is completely separated from other portions by firewalls shall be considered a separate building."

FWIW

John
 
Jim

Jim

I was ask today if branch circuits or a different tenant space could pass through a another space. I said service conductors not allowed, but branch circuits allowed. Was I wrong?
 
If by tenant you mean other than dwelling you may be correct if it is a dwelling check 210.25

Charlie
 
Conductors passing through a neighbor's area does not necessarily mean that the neighbor's loads or common area loads are being served.

Service conductors have to be disconnected at the nearest entry to the building (230.70(A)(1)), which pretty much closes the door on them running through a building, entering a second tenant area, and then being disconnected.

So the "services no, branch circuits/feeders yes" comment is right on the money, IMO.
 
-George Stolz, J.W.
Chairman, Holier Than Thou Committee

Darn I must have missed that meeting. Last I knew I was chairman.:) :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top