Do circuit breakers need to be accessible?

[Yikes]

I know that that California Building Code requires switches and receptacles to be accessible, but what about the circuit breakers themselves? Are they considered "controls"?

What about inside a private apartment dwelling unit (CBC 11A)? If a circuit breaker trips, is the intention of the code for the apartment resident to reset it? And if so, does that make it a "control" of the electrical system, required to be accessible?

 

[jar546]

There was a recent change that required OCPD's to be accessible within reach ranges for both type A and B units if I am not mistaken or at least type A.

 

[mark handler]

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/residential-electrical-codes/2677-height-panel-within-residential-unit.html

 

[Fort]

No. Not under CBC nor Fair Housing Act.

Circuit breakers are not intended to be used as controls for the outlets or lights.

They are a safety device within an electrical system, not a "control."

I know there are many people saying that electric panels must be mounted at accessible heights,

but CBC and Fair Housing Act do not require it and it should not be enforced that way.

They need to be "readily accessible" per CEC / NEC, but that is referring to service needs, but not the kind of "accessible" that you are asking.

However, where ADA applies (which is not typically the case in CA apartments), then there is an Advisory (not actually part of the Act), which does include circuit breakers as an operable part that is covered by 205.1. However, 205.1 Exception 1 says that Operable parts that are intended for use only by service or maintenance personnel shall not be required to comply with 309. So if that panel is not intended for the occupant to use, then it need not be at an accessible height.

But then again, I don't enforce ADA, judges do. I wonder what the case-law tells us on this one.

 

[peach]

only the main (if there is one); in most multi family units, there is no main disconnect. Maintenance is done by a qualified person, not the tenant

 

[RJJ]

I say no, but not an issue of maintenance IMHO. What if the GFIC trips? Would you have to call an electrician?

 

[mark handler]

Even if not specifically identified as being required to be accessible, just do it.

 

[mark handler]

If you have to question whether something should be accessible you are thinking to much.

Equal access, means yes....if you can, it should

 

[Fort]

Even if not specifically identified as being required to be accessible, just do it.

I agree, just curious about installing a panel with the highest breaker at 48" max AFF.

That is really low, I bet most electricians would feel very strange with that installation if it was not actually required.

Perhaps if just "doing it anyway," which does seem like a good idea, there should be consideration of children being able to open the door and mess with the breakers. Probably not so dangerous with the dead front still installed, but it still feels like a safety concern. Maybe some sort of "childproof" latch on the door, like a medicine cap to help keep out the young and dumb ones. But then, damn, the latch requires tight pinching and twisting...no why did I lower this panel again? AHhhh...

anyway, just thoughts, not answers.

 

[peach]

With bigger panels (42 circuits, I think), if you place them so the main is at 48" max, it's possible that the lower breakers may be lower than 15" aff... unless the main is at the bottom of the panel.

RJJ, I don't know that I've seen apartments with GFCI breakers in them.. AFCI, yes.. then you call maintenance.

 

[Yikes]

Peach, I appreciate what you are saying, but in practice, most apartments have very small load centers (100amps), so I don't think we'll encounter the problem you described.

Right now, our contractor is building the 5% "accessible apartments with 48" max high breakers. The other apartments have a more conventional height.

I try to put the load center behind a swinging door, so that it's unlikely anyone will put furniture in front of it, so height is probably not a critical issue.

Fort's comment about childproof load centers is valid; I haven't faced that issue yet, since many of my specialty housing projects happen to involve childless tenants.