I’ve read through this topic on other threads and am seeing various thoughts/responses on the topic.
I’ve inspected several condo units in my area where the service panel for the condo is a down-stream sub panel from the main disconnect or meter somewhere else in the building or located outside the building.
My question to anyone willing to respond - How do you integrate this into your report considering the 6 throw rule and lack of access to the main disconnect associated with the living space from the clients perspective?
In Indiana, I am only required to state the location of the main disconnect. The last condo I inspected it was in a locked cabinet just outside the clients unit. I would then advise the client how to turn off power to their unit from the subpanel in case of an emergency. I would also recommend requesting access to the main disconnect from the condo association.
Are you saying that the condo owner does not have access to the service disconnect? Is there full time maintenance personnel?
230.72(C) Access to Occupants.
In a multiple-occupancy building, each occupant shall have access to the occupant’s service disconnecting means.
Exception: In a multiple-occupancy building where electric service and electrical maintenance are provided by the building management and where these are under continuous building management supervision, the service disconnecting means supplying more than one occupancy shall be permitted to be accessible to authorized management personnel only.
basically what i mean is there is really no access to the main disconnect for the client (1 throw of a main disconnect to cut power to the unit). The only access the client has to disconnect the power to their unit is the sub-panel inside their condo which would require more than 6 hand movements.
I understand the reporting perspective. Just not sure if there is/was some loophole in building requirements where the main disconnect for condo units could be placed outside of the dwelling itself in turn requiring the resident to use more than 6 hand movements to turn power off to their condo because they don’t have access to the main disconnect which could be at a meter somewhere on the exterior of the building or behind a locked maintenance door.
Really just looking to bounce the thought off of folks here to find the best way to put this into future reports
If the service disconnect is on the exterior of the building then it should be accessible to the condo owner so there is nothing to report. Behind a locked door with no access is a different story.
I think you’re right. IMO, the main objective is how the homeowners will turn off power in an emergency. Ideally, they would have access to the service disconnect. Personally. I would use the side of my hand and disconnect multiple breakers at once.
Gabriel, in conclusion, we have learned to dismiss the 6-throw rule. However, most SoPs will require that you report on the size and location of the main service disconnect.
If it is not located or is in a locked room, this must be disclosed. From there, you can decide if a safety concern exists.
Some inspectors only inspect inside the condo or “behind the door” which should be disclosed in your inspection agreement. Others will track down disconnects, shut-offs, exterior condensing units etc. Either is fine, just be sure to be clear in your agreement.
Are you referring to the 6 disconnect rule? The six disconnect rule has been altered to no longer allow “a single enclosure” to house the grouped disconnects .
10-15 hand movements usually. The question was/is based on situations where the power to the existing panel in the condo unit can be cut off with one hand movement but that hand movement isn’t located in the condo itself. Could be in a maintenance closet, the exterior area of the building housing multiple condos, etc.
Basically in case of an emergency the tennant/owner would have to leave the condo to cut the power off at the source or call maintenance personnel to do the same. This is what I see in NC with condos or multi unit housing built anywhere from the 70’s to the 90’s and guessing its a common status of more modern-built units. The replies above really answered my question as to how others report on this. The 230.72 code is helpful
I’m still very confused!! How many breakers are in the panel? Your saying 10-15 hand movements? One hand movement can easily shut of 3-4 breakers. So being concretive your telling me that there are 30-45 breakers in this panel? Do you have a picture? That would be helpful in understanding the issue?
According to the NEC it doesn’t matter how many breakers you can turn of with one hand movement. Each single pole or two pole CB would count as one movement of the hand even if you could literally shut of 4 or 5 at once. Also the number of movements is not relevant to the panel in question because it does not contain the service disconnect.
Let’ just keep it basic. Since we are not code inspectors. Sure if we see that it has more than 6 breakers to cut off All power to the property, This should figure in. But The intent is that a person should be able to easily and quickly turn off all electrical power to the property in case of an emergency. What I find many times with Condos and townhomes, is that there is a Main disconnect located outside at a bank of meters, But just like today’s inspection, The Disconnect for the individual units are not Identified and Labeled. (Same with many Gas meters at these complexes). In these cases I advise that some one needs to Identify and Label…I will usually suggest that this can usually be done by matching the meter # on the utility bill with the corresponding meter and Main Disconnect.
Performing not conforming.
In this case I know that the fire service will pull the utility meter if they want to cut power: so I’ll be far more bothered if that’s hard to see or get to.
The 6 hand rule was always arbitrary: important for new inspections, less so for operating the building decades later.
I agree 100% that labeling the disconnects and gas meters is important: but more for routine maintenance than safety or code.
