240.24(b)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dennis Alwon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the idea that the disconnect only has to be accessible in the event of emergancy?
 
monkey said:
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? ....
Click to expand...

Monkey does not seem to think they have access or that they are accessible

Accessible (as applied to equipment). Admitting close approach; not gaurded by locked doors elevation or other effective means.

If the dog is mean.. it may be effective :)
 
charlie b said:
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)?
Click to expand...

The exception could be applied if it applies.
 
M. D. said:
The exception could be applied if it applies.
Click to expand...
. . . and not applied if it doesn't apply. Not the point.

If a unit's panel has a main breaker, that breaker can be the one that satisfies 230.72(C), even if the wires on the line side of that breaker are a "feeder," and not a "service." It can satisfy that article, even if there is another disconnect (to which the tenant has no access) located somewhere upstream (e.g., at the individual meter serving that unit).

If a unit's panel has no main breaker, but has no more than six "handles," then those six handles can, as a set or group, satisy 230.72(C), even if the wires on the line side of the panel are a "feeder," and not a "service." They can satisfy that article, even if there is another disconnect (to which the tenant has no access) located somewhere upstream (e.g., at the individual meter serving that unit).
 
M. D. said:
Monkey does not seem to think they have access or that they are accessible
:)
Click to expand...
Here is Monkeys second post
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.
Click to expand...
 
Charlie-- I don't get it. How are you saying the 6 discos meet the NEC rule of 230.72(c)-- It specifically says access to service disco. I understand what you are saying but I don't see the words in the code to back you up.

BTW---M.D. neither you nor I can spell emergency correctly. I think I got it this time.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Charlie-- I don't get it. How are you saying the 6 discos meet the NEC rule of 230.72(c)-- It specifically says access to service disco.
Click to expand...
If there is only one service disconnect (i.e., not ?two to six?), then you have no business reading 230.72(C). Look at its title.

My basic problem here is with the book?s use of the phrase ?service disconnecting means,? in that article. I think that phrase does not belong, that it is badly worded, that it is in need of revision. I think it uses the word ?service? in an inaccurate way.

I think the intent is that the tenant should be able to turn off power to the entire unit, through the operation of a breaker (or other disconnect) to which the tenant has access at all times. But the conductors coming into the unit are not service conductors, and the disconnecting means is not a ?service disconnecting means.? A single tenant, in a large apartment building, cannot operate the ?service disconnecting means,? even if he had access to its location, without also turning off power to other tenants as well.

Perhaps a better wording might have been, ?In a multi-occupant building, each occupant shall have access to the disconnecting means that would remove all power to the occupant?s spaces.? Perhaps I?ll put that on my list of changes for 2011.
 
Charlie,
Your recommend code change would certainly add clarity and consistency. I might point out that I don't have access to the overcurrent devices protecting the service conductors supplying my home. Their at the top of a utility pole (I think).

Also, I would like to add: If the ahj determines that each tenant must have ready access to the feeder overcurrent device in the neighbors yard. Then I would argue that the building is OK by code. Only, locking the gate or keeping an "effective" dog would be the code violation. Maybe a weak argument, especially if M.D. is the neighbor. :smile:

Ed Jackson, P.E., Charlotte NC
 
Last edited:
charlie b said:

If there is only one service disconnect (i.e., not ?two to six?), then you have no business reading 230.72(C). Look at its title.
QUOTE]

This is a duplex so there probably is at least 2 discos but we don't know that for sure.

I get what you would like the article to read and I agree with you, but it does not read that way at the present time, IMO. I thought I answered the OP's question correctly based on the 2005 NEC

.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top