services

[newinspector1]

I have a building in my jurisdiction that is located in the downtown areas and the buildings are separated by a common wall. These building have been built for 50 plus years. There is a new tenant in the downstairs portion of the building that I performed a fire inspection on for a Business occupancy. There is an upstairs that is not rented by the downstairs tenant. The service for this building is located outside and the inside panel is located upstairs. I think that this is a violation of 230.72C and 240.24 B. The tenant says she does not pay an electric bill and has access to the outside panel if needed. I am right in saying that doesn't matter and it is a violation of the NEC?

 

[pete m.]

If the service (and service disconnecting means) are located outside the structure I don't see a violation of 230.72(C)?

Would 240.24(B)(1) even be a consideration?

Pete

 

[Smart $]

I have a building in my jurisdiction that is located in the downtown areas and the buildings are separated by a common wall. These building have been built for 50 plus years. There is a new tenant in the downstairs portion of the building that I performed a fire inspection on for a Business occupancy. There is an upstairs that is not rented by the downstairs tenant. The service for this building is located outside and the inside panel is located upstairs. I think that this is a violation of 230.72C and 240.24 B. The tenant says she does not pay an electric bill and has access to the outside panel if needed. I am right in saying that doesn't matter and it is a violation of the NEC?

First, is it a multi-occupancy building? From what you describe, it sure don't sound like it.

If the service disconnect for the occupancy is outside and accessible by the tenant, no violation of 230.72(C)

If the upstairs panel supplies power to the rented space and it is accessible by the tenant, or if there continuous building management supervision, there is no 240.24(B) violation. It does not matter that the panel is not located in the rented space.

 

[newinspector1]

Smart$

It is not a multi-family dwelling. It has a tenant upstairs and a tenant downstairs. The service disconnect is outside by the downstairs tenant space. The inside panel is upstairs and is not accessible to the downstairs tenant.

 

[Smart $]

Smart$

It is not a multi-family dwelling. It has a tenant upstairs and a tenant downstairs. The service disconnect is outside by the downstairs tenant space. The inside panel is upstairs and is not accessible to the downstairs tenant.

I said multi-occupancy building, not multi-family dwelling. Regardless, if overcurrent devices are not accessible by occupant, and there is no continuous building management supervision, yes that would be in violation of 240.24(B).

 

[cowboyjwc]

I said multi-occupancy building, not multi-family dwelling. Regardless, if overcurrent devices are not accessible by occupant, and there is no continuous building management supervision, yes that would be in violation of 240.24(B).

I would say that is correct.