Electrical Distribution / Condo

Archive Public Archive
#1

Originally Posted By: jhagarty
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Situation:


High Rise Condominium approximately 40 years old. Building was originally constructed as an apartment building. Configurations were altered when building was converted to Condo about 25-30 years ago.

Electric utility costs are a common element and part of the Condo maintenance fee.

Sub Main distribution panels are located within the interior of each unit. Turns out that some of the circuits spread across units. In the particular case in question, if the power goes out in a Bedroom, the breaker must be reset within the interior of the adjoining Condo.

Is there any Code requirement that the electrical circuits can not cross units?

Would this have been a code requirement 30 to 40 years ago?

--
Joseph Hagarty

HouseMaster / Main Line, PA
joseph.hagarty@housemaster.com
www.householdinspector.com

Phone: 610-399-9864
Fax : 610-399-9865

HouseMaster. Home inspections. Done right.

#2

Originally Posted By: Joey D’Adamo
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


210.25 in the NEC


http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/viewtopic.php?t=6806

#3

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Looks like it came into the NEC for the first time in 1984.

–
Jerry Peck


South Florida

#4

Originally Posted By: jhagarty
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Does the fact that the Homeowner and Building Management does not have access to the panel present any code compliance issues?

–
Joseph Hagarty


HouseMaster / Main Line, PA
joseph.hagarty@housemaster.com
www.householdinspector.com

Phone: 610-399-9864
Fax : 610-399-9865

HouseMaster. Home inspections. Done right.
#5

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


jhagarty wrote:
Does the fact that the Homeowner and Building Management does not have access to the panel present any code compliance issues?


Now, yes. Back then, no.

However, being as the Homeowner does not have access to their circuits overcurrent protection DOES create a life safety issue when one considers that getting to you overcurrent protection COULD stop a fire in its tracks, and that is not possible in this situation.

Fires can lead to death, which is certainly a life safety issue. ![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)

--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
#6

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Actually NEC 1975 240-24(b) says “Each occupant shall have ready access to all overcurrent devices protecting the conductors supplying his occupancy” … and it was not a new change then. I bet this is a very old code requirement. For sure 1972 or older.


I suspect this was illegal when it was installed or the occupancy changed and the wiring didn’t.

#7

Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


jhagarty wrote:
Does the fact that the Homeowner and Building Management does not have access to the panel present any code compliance issues?

Just the question of "code compliance" should send shivers down an HI's back ... ![icon_cool.gif](upload://oPnLkqdJc33Dyf2uA3TQwRkfhwd.gif)

It may not be a code issue based on grandfathering provisions, if those apply. Then again, we dont know what the local/legal codes required at the time of construction. But an HI is not doing a code compliance review.

I would agree with Jerry (oh well) and say it is a concern ... based on current safety standards (i.e. NEC or IRC). In practical terms an occupant needs access to shut down the power in case there is a problem. Wires are cooking in the middle of the night ... what do ya do?

(PS ... I know where you were going with that Joe, but couldn't resist busting on ya a bit ... lol/duck)

Just my opinion and 2-nickels ...

--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee

I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
#8

Originally Posted By: rmoore
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Regardless of whether or not it was in compliance when it was done, isn’t a safety concern based on current standards a safety concern for the current occupant and therefore in need of repair?


Assuming you discovered the situation, would any of you not call this for a prospective buyer of a single unit? This seems like more than just a recommended upgrade.

--
Richard Moore
Rest Assured Inspection Services
Seattle, WA
www.rainspect.com

#9

Originally Posted By: bbadger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


jpeck wrote:
However, being as the Homeowner does not have access to their circuits overcurrent protection DOES create a life safety issue when one considers that getting to you overcurrent protection COULD stop a fire in its tracks, and that is not possible in this situation.


Please explain the scenario where access to the breakers will stop a fire in it's tracks? ![icon_confused.gif](upload://qv5zppiN69qCk2Y6JzaFYhrff8S.gif)

Disconnecting means are provided for safe servicing of equipment they are not provided for emergency shut offs, other than for motor loads.

Bob

--
Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN
#10

Originally Posted By: jhagarty
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


roconnor wrote:
jhagarty wrote:
Does the fact that the Homeowner and Building Management does not have access to the panel present any code compliance issues?

Just the question of "code compliance" should send shivers down an HI's back ... ![icon_cool.gif](upload://oPnLkqdJc33Dyf2uA3TQwRkfhwd.gif)

It may not be a code issue based on grandfathering provisions, if those apply. Then again, we dont know what the local/legal codes required at the time of construction. But an HI is not doing a code compliance review.


Robert:

This question is not related to an inspection. This is a case where a Homeowner is being held hostage to her electric at the whim of an adjoining Homeowner who is periodically isolating the circuit intentionally. Building Management and Municipal Electrical/Building Inspectors (AHJ) are refusing to get involved. The case will most likely end up in court.

--
Joseph Hagarty

HouseMaster / Main Line, PA
joseph.hagarty@housemaster.com
www.householdinspector.com

Phone: 610-399-9864
Fax : 610-399-9865

HouseMaster. Home inspections. Done right.
#11

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Greg Fretwell wrote:
Actually NEC 1975 240-24(b) says "Each occupant shall have ready access to all overcurrent devices protecting the conductors supplying his occupancy" ... and it was not a new change then. I bet this is a very old code requirement. For sure 1972 or older.
I suspect this was illegal when it was installed or the occupancy changed and the wiring didn't.


That came in with the 1971 code as a different sub section number (240-16).

Also, define "ready access". It is not defined in the code.

Be that as it may, I will agree that the "intent" of the 1971 change was to make them readily accessible to the occupant. Before 1971, there was no such requirement - unless I just cannot find it.

--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
#12

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


rmoore wrote:
Regardless of whether or not it was in compliance when it was done, isn't a safety concern based on current standards a safety concern for the current occupant and therefore in need of repair?


That IS what I keep trying to tell people. ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif)

Not everyone agrees, though. For some reason, there are those who feel they are not to write up a known safety item if it was not known back then.

--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
#13

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Joe,


Are there any circuits in her units which protect circuits in their unit?

If so, tell her to shut all those circuits off.

Have her sue the building management before suing the owner next door causing the problem.

This is the "reason": "Electric utility costs are a common element and part of the Condo maintenance fee. "

She is paying the full fee and not getting full electrical power. She needs to be reimbursed for the percentage of 'none service' they are allowing to exist, back to as far as she can go. As an example, assume that 10% of the circuits affected. She sues for a 10% refund for the past 10 years she's been there. Let the association do the math.

--
Jerry Peck
South Florida