240.24(b)

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

monkey

Senior Member
Location
Arizona
Would a duplex with a subpanel in each unit but the main discos located in an area not accessable to both tenants be in violation of this section? If it makes a difference, the subpanels have less than six circuits each.
Thanks..................Brian
 
Yes I saw exception 1, except these are residential two family units with no maintenance or supervision on the premises.
 
I believe you answered your own question. I agree it is a violation since first sentence states each occupant shall have ready access to all OCD protecting the conductors supplying that occupancy. Since the feeder conductors to the subpanel is protected in another area without accessibility, it appears to be a violation.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Where are the mains located that the tenants can't get to them.
Click to expand...
they are in the back yards, which are fenced and belong to the rear tenants. If the gates were locked or a dog present, the front tenant could not get to his/her main.
 
I believe if the Discos are outside then, I believe they are code compliant. In an emergency one could get to them. The NEC cannot think about dogs or lions kept in the back yard.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I believe if the Discos are outside then, I believe they are code compliant. In an emergency one could get to them. The NEC cannot think about dogs or lions kept in the back yard.
Click to expand...


I agree. If they were in a space only accessible through another tenant space than you would have a problem.
 
Accessible
admitting close approach; not guarded by locked doors, elevation, or other effective means.

A dog in a back yard is very effective, and one of the main reasons people have a dog.
Have you ever seen the sign "ATTACK DOG"...very effective ;)
 
If the yards "belong to the rear tenants" they can exclude any one access if they choose. I'm not sure it meets the definition of accessible

Trevor ,if the yard "belongs" to someone else why is that not thier space??
I think could be a problem if they don't want you there.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Since the feeder conductors to the subpanel is protected in another area without accessibility, it appears to be a violation.
Click to expand...
I see it differently. I don?t think the tenant needs to have access to the OCPD that protects the feeder to their panel. I only think the tenant has to have access to every OCPD that protects conductors within their own unit.

It?s a matter of interpretation of the phrase ?conductors supplying that occupancy.? The word ?conductors? could be referring to the conductors from the outside world bringing power into the unit. That word could also be referring to the conductors from the panel to various outlets within the unit. I believe it is the latter.

Imagine an apartment building that has an electric room immediately adjacent to one apartment unit. Suppose the panel supplying all loads in that unit is located in the electric room, on the wall that separates the electric room from the unit. Suppose that all branch circuits start in that panel, and run through that wall into the ceiling of the unit, and from there throughout the unit. Finally, suppose that within the unit there is a single enclosure that contains a fused disconnect that supplies the panel on the other side of the wall. Thus, the tenant has access to the main disconnect for their panel, but not to any of the branch circuit breakers. Is this code compliant?

I think the point is that the tenant should be able to turn off any branch circuit breaker. The ability to also turn off a main breaker is not relevant.
 
M. D. said:
Charlie, take a peek at 230.72(C)
Click to expand...
Now why should I go and do a thing like that? It would require me to turn another page, and I don?t have the energy today. :wink: :roll: :cool:

OK. So I withdraw my previous statements. But now let me submit that each tenant does have access to the service disconnecting means to their own unit. They may have to throw six switches to completely disconnect the service entrance conductors, but that does not cause this installation to be in violation.
 
charlie b said:
But now let me submit that each tenant does have access to the service disconnecting means to their own unit. They may have to throw six switches to completely disconnect the service entrance conductors, but that does not cause this installation to be in violation. [/FONT][/SIZE]
Click to expand...

Charlie those 6 disconnects in the sub panel are not the service disco. Art. 230.72(C) says access to service disconnect.
 
Charlie ,What Dennis said:)

If that cable went directly to the dwelling , it would be a cable containing service entrance conductors.
 
I just hope the OP is not confused by all this.

To restate-- the installation that was originally posted is compliant, IMO since the tenants have access to the disco.

We are in a "what if" dialogue now....ie, what if the tenant did not have access to the disco. That is what is being discussed now.
 
What about a large apartment building, with a main electric room and all the metering. Each unit has a panel, and that panel may or may not have a main breaker. But the tenant does not have access to the ?service disconnecting means? for their own unit, because their unit is supplied by a feeder, not by a service. So how does one comply with 230.72(C)?
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I just hope the OP is not confused by all this.

To restate-- the installation that was originally posted is compliant, IMO since the tenants have access to the disco.

We are in a "what if" dialogue now....ie, what if the tenant did not have access to the disco. That is what is being discussed now.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree if the yard "belongs" to me , why can't I keep you out?
 
M. D. said:
Not sure I agree if the yard "belongs" to me , why can't I keep you out?
Click to expand...

In an immergency you couldn't keep me out. LOL

I would think there would be some right of way required to have access to the service just as the meter man would have access-- assuming the meter is in the fence area.
 
I would guess that the duplex is owned by a landlord and that both units are rentals. With this in mind I don't see a problem. The 'bad dog' thing, I believe, is not a valid argument against this location. Some folks may have bad or mean dogs, but not everyone. I have seen this condition many times, and actually, only a few had dogs in the yards.

(The code doesn't mention dogs..........does it???)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top