Running line side service cable through one building to serve another.

Status
Not open for further replies.
mortimer said:
Can this be done? It must be in 230 somewhere.:?
Click to expand...

it is.

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.

230.6 Conductors Considered Outside the Building. Conductors
shall be considered outside of a building or other structure
under any of the following conditions:
(1) Where installed under not less than 50 mm (2 in.) of
concrete beneath a building or other structure
(2) Where installed within a building or other structure in a
raceway that is encased in concrete or brick not less than
50 mm (2 in.) thick
(3) Where installed in any vault that meets the construction
requirements of Article 450, Part III
(4) Where installed in conduit and under not less than
450 mm (18 in.) of earth beneath a building or other
structure
(5) Where installed within rigid metal conduit (Type RMC)
or intermediate metal conduit (Type IMC) used to
accommodate the clearance requirements in 230.24 and
routed directly through an eave but not a wall of a building
Click to expand...
 
mortimer said:
Or if there is a disco. one building #1 for building #2 can you run the feeders through building #1? The buildings are detached.
Click to expand...

Yes. And I would go further and say you can run service conductors into the first building, hit a disconnect "nearest the point of entry" (as interpreted by your AHJ), and run the feeder for the second building through the first building.

230.3 is poorly worded IMO.
 
electrofelon said:
Yes. And I would go further and say you can run service conductors into the first building, hit a disconnect "nearest the point of entry" (as interpreted by your AHJ), and run the feeder for the second building through the first building.

230.3 is poorly worded IMO.
Click to expand...
Why poorly worded? The title alone maybe leads to some misunderstanding - the content is pretty clear though.

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

If you do exactly what you first said - hit a "service disconnecting means" in the first building - anything load side of that is not service conductors and none of 230 applies to it.

What you can't do is bring service conductors into first building, then leave the building again (still as service conductors), even if both incoming and outgoing are "nearest point of entry" to go to another building.

Places where one service lateral, drop, etc. are permitted to supply more then one building/structure (say a house and a garage for example) you would have to make that connection that goes to the second structure outside the first structure.
 
kwired said:
What you can't do is bring service conductors into first building, then leave the building again (still as service conductors), even if both incoming and outgoing are "nearest point of entry" to go to another building.
Click to expand...

I guess it's the pass through part. It seems they mean enter and exit as service conductors the whole way, but it's ok to enter and terminate. Also seems 230.3 is Un necessary as its already prohibited by the nearest point of entry clause.
 
electrofelon said:
I guess it's the pass through part. It seems they mean enter and exit as service conductors the whole way, but it's ok to enter and terminate. Also seems 230.3 is Un necessary as its already prohibited by the nearest point of entry clause.
Click to expand...
I think maybe could use a little work but think it does basically state that a service conductor inside one building can not directly supply another building. Many first look at that and say duh, you can't run service conductors through a building without overcurrent protection near the entry. But as worded it also means you can't bring service conductors into the building, hit a disconnect near entry but at same time put double lugs on that disconnect and go back outside to feed a second structure.

In a situation where you could supply two structures from one service drop/lateral (like a house and a garage) that could be tempting, but the splice, tap, or whatever you may call it would have to be outside the first building to comply with 230.3.
 
kwired said:
I think maybe could use a little work but think it does basically state that a service conductor inside one building can not directly supply another building. Many first look at that and say duh, you can't run service conductors through a building without overcurrent protection near the entry. But as worded it also means you can't bring service conductors into the building, hit a disconnect near entry but at same time put double lugs on that disconnect and go back outside to feed a second structure.

In a situation where you could supply two structures from one service drop/lateral (like a house and a garage) that could be tempting, but the splice, tap, or whatever you may call it would have to be outside the first building to comply with 230.3.
Click to expand...

So are we in agreement that we can come into a building with two sets of SEC, one hitting a MB service panel to supply that building, and the other hitting a disco and continuing through that buildi ng as a feeder to supply another building? I think so, but it comes down to what exactly "pass through" means.
 
electrofelon said:
So are we in agreement that we can come into a building with two sets of SEC, one hitting a MB service panel to supply that building, and the other hitting a disco and continuing through that buildi ng as a feeder to supply another building? I think so, but it comes down to what exactly "pass through" means.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is no service conductors entering building 1 that don't also leave the building, still as service conductors.

You can't violate this section if what you have supplying the second building isn't a service conductor. If it is a service conductor it can't come from the interior of another building.
 
I've had an argument with my ahj about this exact situation but it was a bit hair I'll try to explain. I had a customer ask me to quote a service up grade at his business . It was a multi use building with a store and 2 residential units on top attached directly next to it was the same set up he happened to own both units. The buildings are separated with a double stone foundation. The problem arose when Con Edison with only provide one service entrance because both structures were only on one tax lot. For some strange reason there are two service entrances currently but in order for Edison to provide me with the service that I needed they needed to redo everything . The problem was my ahj wouldn't allow me to put the disconnect in one basement without having a door in the firewall but building codes would not allow a door in the firewall separating the two structures long story short we just didn't do the job

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Of someone were to lock that door then the tenants would not have access to shut down the power and the fire department as well would have to look for the service disconnect even with proper labeling and signs it was going to be a paper work night mare having to get easements with the city blah blah.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
What about putting the disconnects on the back outside wall? Both on the first building or one on the first building and the second on the second building. Put everything in conduit outside the buildings.
 
nickelec said:
Of someone were to lock that door then the tenants would not have access to shut down the power and the fire department as well would have to look for the service disconnect even with proper labeling and signs it was going to be a paper work night mare having to get easements with the city blah blah.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
NEC doesn't have a problem with a locked door. Tenants still need access to their overcurrent protection though, unless there is on site staff that can provide access when necessary.

Seen many single occupant buildings where fire dept may have a hard time finding where service disconnect is, add smoke and fire and it gets even harder.
 
That was what the cheif of code interpretation said as well it was a night mare

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
kwired said:
NEC doesn't have a problem with a locked door. Tenants still need access to their overcurrent protection though, unless there is on site staff that can provide access when necessary.

Seen many single occupant buildings where fire dept may have a hard time finding where service disconnect is, add smoke and fire and it gets even harder.
Click to expand...

Do you really think fire Dept will waste time finding the disconnect? They'll just give a hard whack with their double pointed-fiber glass-handled axe at the service meter if poco doesn't show up in 5 min or less. :cool:
 
myspark said:
Do you really think fire Dept will waste time finding the disconnect? They'll just give a hard whack with their double pointed-fiber glass-handled axe at the service meter if poco doesn't show up in 5 min or less. :cool:
Click to expand...
On most SF dwellings and small commercial applications that might work. Larger services all that does is destroy the meter but won't interrupt voltage to the service equipment. I even run into an occasional larger dwelling with CT metering from time to time. Electric heat/water heating is usually the biggest reason for needing that kind of capacity. 10-15 years ago electric heat cost less to operate then gas heat around here, now gas is less again, chances are the electric rate remains steady over the years with only minor changes, gas is what will take a sudden change, up or down.
 
I don't see how pass through can mean anything other than pass through. if the service conductors stop being service conductors somewhere along the line and become a feeder there are no service conductors passing through the structure feeding another structure.
 
The bottom line is that you cannot run unprotected conductors through one building to supply another. What's so hard about that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top