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.Dennis Alwon said:Where are the mains located that the tenants can't get to them.
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.
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.Dennis Alwon said:Since the feeder conductors to the subpanel is protected in another area without accessibility, it appears to be a violation.
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:M. D. said:Charlie, take a peek at 230.72(C)
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]
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.
M. D. said:Not sure I agree if the yard "belongs" to me , why can't I keep you out?