We have a bank that has the Service Disconnect located outdoors and they are concerned about tampering. The question comes up- Can I install a padlock on the Service Disconnect to prevent unauthorized persons from turning off the power to the bank. I see the words Readily Accessible in Article 230 and need a second opinion.
George:
IMHO, a 'breakaway' padlock has been acceptable here. That is, after a courtesy call to the local Fire Official usually.
The breakaway lock is acceptable on sprinkler main valves. Again, blessed by the FO
Basically....judgement call time.
Little things like padlocks do not slow down the fire department. If they want in something they have the tools to get in. In this case, the point of a fire axe.
I have seen firemen bust the seal off a meter, pick the ring off and pop out the meter from 4 feet away with an axe.
It is really a couple quick flicks of the wrist.
I bet Trumpy can do it
They don't stand in front of it!
George,
The definition of readily accessible does not have any prohibition against locks.
As Greg said, padlocks do not slow down the Fire Department. Having the disconnect outside so they don't have to pull the meter is probably safer for them anyway
Tom
I would not have a problem with a FUSED disconnect. That would still provide overcurrent protection.
A non-fused disconnect would be a problem.
I have seen firemen bust the seal off a meter, pick the ring off and pop out the meter from 4 feet away with an axe.
It is really a couple quick flicks of the wrist.
I bet Trumpy can do it
Power Company has fusing outside of the building boundary here (ie before the metering gear), these fuses are normally pulled in the case of a building fire.
BTW, the PoCo is responsible for the removal of the fuses and are often responded at the same time as the Fire Service (as part of a pre-determined plan).
Having said that, you also have to think of other systems like sprinkler pumps and other fire control equipment.
Locks on the disconnects outside of commercial buildings are the norm around here.
I would say about 1/2 of them have some old rusted up master lock on them.
Locks on the disconnects outside of commercial buildings are the norm around here.
I would say about 1/2 of them have some old rusted up master lock on them.
All the time here as well. All types of occupancies.
Commercial, the land lord/owner never has keys.
Not to worry.
I vote to allow.
BTW: I don't think it is any thing (regardless of the quality of a keyed lock) That a $100 (USA) cordless and 1/4" bit could not defeat in under 90 seconds.Ya know, Hard steel and soft brass for the important stuff!
I think that most fire trucks have bolt cutters on them as standard equiptment. That should be able to take care of the problem quicker than trying to break the lock with an axe.
Bolt cutters will go through it like butter.
I had a pair of small Chinese bolt cutters and offered to go cut the lock of of a friends (a very paranoid friend) gate to his undeveloped property some years ago.
As this pair of cheap cutters dispatched the lock with minimal effort the look on my friends face was priceless.
"What good are locks !?!"
"Not much really :)"
Locks are for honest people.
If it can be locked "on" i.e. there are an appropriately aligned pair of holes then its perfectly OK - its designed to be used that way.
To Ann's comment....I have to add some of the older ITE/Gould discos that have the side 'push' type handle, only one perfect hole works
Break out the cordless drill?
'Your honor......it was like that from the supply house'
From memory, some of the 'side handles like the pics have some play in the handle above the side guard.
How would you lock one of these in the on position without some drilling?
I would follow the directions from the manufacturer. In the case of Square D, there is actually a factory stamped 'dimple' for a field drilled "lock-on" hole.
And Now ... for the opposing view:
I recently installed a new service for some spaces in a mobile home park. The plan is: power for one space now, provide for two more.
The PoCo refused to set a transformer and run the new lines for one trailer; with three planned, no problem. I set up a common meter board, a gutter just long enough to feed three meters, and a main disconnect to make the later addition of the two additional meters easier.
Why not install the meter bases now? Because the city has not approved the additional two spaces; there are myriad other issues the park has to address before the next two spaces are allowed.
Well, I just had a chat with the PoCo. This person - who has not been involved until now - was insisting I "secure the disconnect side of the service feed." A phone call clarified what I suspected: their linesman was confused by my putting a main disconnect where there were fewer than seven meters - and was so accustomed to seeing a chain and lock on the disco that he thought it was mandatory!
Most, if not all the disconnects shown are nema 1 (not raintite) enclosures. I looked at several 3R rated for main disconnect and they have a hole for locking in the on position.
Locks only slow down the honest people, or the first time thieves, and my kids wonder why I live in such a small town.
George
230.72 (C) Exception.
Take a look. Just a thought
Ayrton:
The OP issue is to prevent vandals from turning off the power to the structure.
I understand the "morale of the story "
230.92 basicaly tells us it is allowable to lock the service disconnect with exceptions. If locked or sealed or not accessable to tenants, than branch circuit overprotection is required to be accessable to tenant. Very coomon. Electric room with all tenant service equip and meters....LOCKED but tenants have branch circuit panel in suites or apts.
Am I interpreting this right?
I dont see anything in 230.72 about locking the service disconnect. It s talking about accessability to tenants. Says NOTHING about being allowed to LOCK service disconnect
"Am I interpreting this right? "
Basically, yes