Locked Service Entrance Closets Not Accessible to Condo Owners / Residents

Status
Not open for further replies.

W6SJK

Senior Member
Hi,

My condo complex HOA has decided to add locks to the service disconnect (Main and 8 meters/CBs) closet doors at the end of each 8 unit building, keyed to the utility's key, to keep people from storing odds and ends there. My condo panel is MLO so I want access to this closet to open the CB serving my panel! Seems like a violation of 2016 NEC 230.72 (C). I don't think the exception applies because management only maintains the common areas i.e. exterior lighting, sprinkler timer etc. I have to maintain my condo panel and electrical distribution.

Any inspectors here agree? Thanks, Steve K, P.E.

(They already created one violation when they replaced one door with a fixed panel, which is 2ft or so in front of the "house" panel.)
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
Hi,

My condo complex HOA has decided to add locks to the service disconnect (Main and 8 meters/CBs) closet doors at the end of each 8 unit building, keyed to the utility's key, to keep people from storing odds and ends there. My condo panel is MLO so I want access to this closet to open the CB serving my panel! Seems like a violation of 2016 NEC 230.72 (C). I don't think the exception applies because management only maintains the common areas i.e. exterior lighting, sprinkler timer etc. I have to maintain my condo panel and electrical distribution.

Any inspectors here agree? Thanks, Steve K, P.E.

(They already created one violation when they replaced one door with a fixed panel, which is 2ft or so in front of the "house" panel.)

Article 230 is about services. I suspect you have a feeder to your unit and not a service. However I think you are still required to have access to it unless it is under management control. It seems to me that management has control of the part of the electrical system in question which might be all that is required to satisfy the exception.
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
The article of interest here is 240.24(B)(1). But for that to apply, the building management must provide “continuous supervision.” To me, that means that if your MLO panel somehow gets overloaded at 2 in the morning, and it this condition trips the upstream feeder breaker in the (locked) closet, then you need to be able to call someone who is on site (likely to be sleeping at that moment), and that person must have the ability to open the closet and reset the breaker.
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
The article of interest here is 240.24(B)(1). But for that to apply, the building management must provide “continuous supervision.” To me, that means that if your MLO panel somehow gets overloaded at 2 in the morning, and it this condition trips the upstream feeder breaker in the (locked) closet, then you need to be able to call someone who is on site (likely to be sleeping at that moment), and that person must have the ability to open the closet and reset the breaker.
That is my belief too. An on site manage would be enough. Also remember that if you have access to yours then so does everyone else. Probably don't really want that.
 

W6SJK

Senior Member
Thank you all. This 364 unit condo community does not have any management or maintenance on site. And the closets have been accessible for 27 years without a problem that I know of, other than people storing a few things in them. Also nice to be able to read the meter occasionally, although that can be done online now. Cheers!
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
The article of interest here is 240.24(B)(1). But for that to apply, the building management must provide “continuous supervision.” To me, that means that if your MLO panel somehow gets overloaded at 2 in the morning, and it this condition trips the upstream feeder breaker in the (locked) closet, then you need to be able to call someone who is on site (likely to be sleeping at that moment), and that person must have the ability to open the closet and reset the breaker.

I don't see why they would have to be onsite. Just being able to contact them and have them come in is adequate to meet the requirement IMO. nothing says the supervision has to be on site.
 

W6SJK

Senior Member
I don't see why they would have to be onsite. Just being able to contact them and have them come in is adequate to meet the requirement IMO. nothing says the supervision has to be on site.

The building management does not provide the maintenance of the feeder, panel or branch circuits required in this article.
 

david

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
looked at a gang of 8 service disconnects last night i have to assume the power company made a mistake
 

Attachments

  • 20180706_114631.jpg
    20180706_114631.jpg
    41.5 KB · Views: 0

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
I don't see why they would have to be onsite. Just being able to contact them and have them come in is adequate to meet the requirement IMO. nothing says the supervision has to be on site.
I would not treat as "continuous supervision" the notion that the building management's representative is not on site. If he or she has a room in the same building, and if they don't answer the phone at 2am, I could always go knocking on their door. If they are not on site, I would have no recourse if they don't answer the phone.

 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
The building management does not provide the maintenance of the feeder, panel or branch circuits required in this article.
That is not what the article requires. Does the building owner provide electrical service to the building? I think so. Do they also provide (when required) maintenance of the service equipment and any "house panels" or other common area electrical equipment? I have to believe they do. So it is possible for them to take advantage of 240.24(B)(1).

 

david

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
I would not treat as "continuous supervision" the notion that the building management's representative is not on site. If he or she has a room in the same building, and if they don't answer the phone at 2am, I could always go knocking on their door. If they are not on site, I would have no recourse if they don't answer the phone.


to be fair what recourse would you have if they do not answer there door

the code is not that specific to what continuous supervision means
 

W6SJK

Senior Member
That is not what the article requires. Does the building owner provide electrical service to the building? I think so. Do they also provide (when required) maintenance of the service equipment and any "house panels" or other common area electrical equipment? I have to believe they do. So it is possible for them to take advantage of 240.24(B)(1).


Charlie I don't understand how you can come to this conclusion. 240.24 (B)(1) is titled "Service and Feeder Overcurrent Devices" and seems to require three prerequisites:
1. Electrical Service is provided by building management
2. Electrical maintenance is provided by building management
3. Continuous supervision is provided by building management

They don't meet the requirements of #2 or #3. They don't maintain the feeder CBs and feeder conductors to my panel located in my garage and they don't have anyone available on site.
 

david

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
Charlie I don't understand how you can come to this conclusion. 240.24 (B)(1) is titled "Service and Feeder Overcurrent Devices" and seems to require three prerequisites:
1. Electrical Service is provided by building management
2. Electrical maintenance is provided by building management
3. Continuous supervision is provided by building management

They don't meet the requirements of #2 or #3. They don't maintain the feeder CBs and feeder conductors to my panel located in my garage and they don't have anyone available on site.

(B) Occupancy. Each occupant shall have ready access to all overcurrent devices protecting the conductors supplying that occupancy, unless otherwise permitted in 240.24(B)(1) and (B)(2).

“overcurrent devices supplying more than one occupancy shall be permitted to be accessible only to authorized management personnel”

I think the building management has permission to secure the service disconnecting means supplying multiple occupants.

How ever when it comes to the overcurrent protection of the feeder to your single apartment that permission is not given since it does not protect more than one occupancy
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
Read what it actually says, not what you want it to say.

(240.24 B) Occupancy. Each occupant shall have ready access to all
overcurrent devices protecting the conductors supplying that
occupancy, unless otherwise permitted in 240.24(B)(1) and
(B)(2).
(1) Service and Feeder Overcurrent Devices. Where electric
service and electrical maintenance are provided by the building
management and where these are under continuous building
management supervision, the service overcurrent devices
and feeder overcurrent devices supplying more than one occupancy
shall be permitted to be accessible only to authorized
management personnel in the following:
(1) Multiple-occupancy buildings
In your case the electric service is clearly provided by and under the sole supervision of building management.

It is also likely that building management provides electrical maintenance for the service.

Continuous supervision does not mean there is an electrician standing by 24/7 in case something happens. It just means building management is solely responsible all of the time.

I don't see anywhere that it says building management has to be solely responsible for electrical maintenance of every circuit in the building for this provision to take effect. It is unlikely that any building with multiple occupancies would ever qualify if that was the case.
 

david

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
the way i read this section, the only over-current devices that can be secured by building management in an multi occupancy building are the ones if by being opened would effect more than on occupancy.

The tenants have the right to pad lock there own individual feeder over current device not building management
 

W6SJK

Senior Member
HOA 1 : OWNER 0

HOA 1 : OWNER 0

Well I lost the first battle. In an email the HOA rep said that they coordinated with the electric utility and felt that they were in compliance. I replied explaining that the utility doesn't need to meet the NEC, that they play by their own rules. I asked what the procedure will be to gain access 24/7 if an electrician needs to open the CB to work on my panel safely. Anticipating their reply I added that the utility does not get involved for that.

I haven't received a response.
 

W6SJK

Senior Member
Problem solved but not how I expected

Problem solved but not how I expected

On the phone the HOA rep said that they HAVE to lock the closets to meet insurance requirements because of residents using them for storage. And she said that most electricians have the utility key. Not sure about that since there's more than one key used. Then I noticed that "homeowners" are permitted to have that key according to the utility's website. So I looked at some of the lock cylinders that have already been installed and got the key number. I went to an "approved" locksmith and got the $9 key, no questions asked! I win in the end. :)
 

gadfly56

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
Read what it actually says, not what you want it to say.


In your case the electric service is clearly provided by and under the sole supervision of building management.

It is also likely that building management provides electrical maintenance for the service.

Continuous supervision does not mean there is an electrician standing by 24/7 in case something happens. It just means building management is solely responsible all of the time.

I don't see anywhere that it says building management has to be solely responsible for electrical maintenance of every circuit in the building for this provision to take effect. It is unlikely that any building with multiple occupancies would ever qualify if that was the case.

If management is not on site 24/7, then supervision is not continuous. Like most HOA's I'll bet the most they have is a JOAT who services multiple associations on an on-call basis so I very much doubt there is true supervision of any kind. As an alternative, they could monitor the load side of all the OCPD's for voltage and have a central station notify them of a trip. Any takers? No, I didn't think so.

They can isolate the main and sub disconnects, but they cannot lock away the very last CB that goes to the tenant panel. Tough luck for the association if they are all in the same room.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top