Locking out breaker in a panel

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Davebones

Senior Member
Location
North Of Tampa Fl
There's a new device called "Panel Lockout". You secure this over the outside of a panel cover and put a lock on it it . Does this meet the requirements of lockout ? Or does the individual breaker inside have to have a lock on it ?
 
If your asking about the requirements for a breaker lockout device allowed by 422.31(B) it would not suffice if it did not lock out only the breaker used as a disconnect.
 
Davebones said:
There's a new device called "Panel Lockout". You secure this over the outside of a panel cover and put a lock on it it . Does this meet the requirements of lockout ? Or does the individual breaker inside have to have a lock on it ?
Click to expand...



This would not meet the requirements of the breaker being able to be locked in the open position. It locks the panel, not the breaker
 
You can use the "HPL" option for a Square D QO breaker if you need the handle padlock option. Just a small adder in price over a standard QO.
 
I do not know of any NEC or OSHA rule that would prohibit using this device for LOTO.

That said, in new installations there are times where the NEC requires a breaker lock out device be provided on the individual breaker that remains in place regardless if it is used or not. However there is nothing to say the worker has to use this provided lock out on the breaker if they where to use this panel lock out device.
 
I think the panel lockout meets the intent of OSHA's requirements.

1910.333(b)(2)(iii)(A)
A lock and a tag shall be placed on each disconnecting means used to deenergize circuits and equipment on which work is to be performed, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(C) and (b)(2)(iii)(E) of this section. The lock shall be attached so as to prevent persons from operating the disconnecting means unless they resort to undue force or the use of tools.
 
Last edited:
zog said:
I think the panel lockout meets the intent of OSHA's requirements.

1910.333(b)(2)(iii)(A)
A lock and a tag shall be placed on each disconnecting means used to deenergize circuits and equipment on which work is to be performed, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(C) and (b)(2)(iii)(E) of this section. The lock shall be attached so as to prevent persons from operating the disconnecting means unless they resort to undue force or the use of tools.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the overall lock meets the letter of that rule?

If this is a main breaker service disconnect panel, will this be a temporary technical violation of 230.72(C) if the worker that installed the LOTO goes to lunch?
 
480sparky said:
So would a locked electrical room door be considered an OSHA-okee-dokeed lock-out device?:cool:
Click to expand...
I would certainly think so, as long as it accepts OSHA-okee-dokeed locks. That is little different in group lockouts in my thought where one key is in a lockout box and dozens of locks are on the box. Indirect, but effective.

What might be different with the room (and is certainly considered with group lockouts) is that it has been assured that no other energy sources exist ... the room locked only guarantees the state when it was locked, too ... and might in itself be a violation if required (even in emergency) access is blocked.
 
480sparky said:
So would a locked electrical room door be considered an OSHA-okee-dokeed lock-out device?:cool:
Click to expand...

I would not consider a lock on the door to be 'on' the disconnecting means.

I would consider the door of a panel to be on the disconnecting means as the breaker by itself is basiclly nothing.

Volta said:
Do you think that the overall lock meets the letter of that rule?

If this is a main breaker service disconnect panel, will this be a temporary technical violation of 230.72(C) if the worker that installed the LOTO goes to lunch?
Click to expand...

So in your opinion if I LOTO a feeder to an electrical room with with say 5 panels supplied from that feeder I would also have to place LOTO on any and all branch circuit that were being worked on?

Where is the section that requires me to LOTO what is not connected to an electrical system?
 
iwire said:
I would not consider a lock on the door to be 'on' the disconnecting means.

I would consider the door of a panel to be on the disconnecting means as the breaker by itself is basiclly nothing.



So in your opinion if I LOTO a feeder to an electrical room with with say 5 panels supplied from that feeder I would also have to place LOTO on any and all branch circuit that were being worked on?
Click to expand...
I don't know. But I am wondering if this proposed item qualifies for the requirement to 'lockout' "each disconnecting means used to deenergize circuits . . ."
Where is the section that requires me to LOTO what is not connected to an electrical system?
Click to expand...

Do you mean from OSHA? I don't think this is primarily a NFPA 70 question. This one's close.

CFR 29 1910.147(c)(1) said:
Energy control program. The employer shall establish a program consisting of energy control procedures, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performs any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, startup or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment shall be isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative.
Click to expand...
 
Volta said:
Do you think that the overall lock meets the letter of that rule?

If this is a main breaker service disconnect panel, will this be a temporary technical violation of 230.72(C) if the worker that installed the LOTO goes to lunch?
Click to expand...

Sure, you don;t even need locks, you can use a tag only program if you meet all the requirements.
 
Hi all, I am the owner of Panel Lockout. I will try to answer any questions about our device. Regarding 230.72:

[230.70(A)(1)]. In a multiple-occupancy building, each occupant must have access to the service disconnecting means [230.72(C)]. However, if electrical maintenance is provided by continuous building management, the service disconnecting means can be accessible only to building management personnel.

The electrician (hired through the building management) would be an agent of the building management so would be authorized to control access. It is common for a tenant that needs access to a panel to call the building for access. In this case the electrician's contact information is on the tagout so access can be gained. The electrician would supervise any access so the circuit breakers he is working on do not get turned on.
 
I haven't used one but I like the idea.

Am I the only one who has had to use a breaker lock that wasn't quite right for the type of breaker you were locking out?

Sometimes they aren't secured as well as you would like and at least once I've come back to the panel only to see the LOTO lying on the floor. :roll:

A few years ago I gave serious thought to coming up with a gadget like this but never went very far with it because I figured it would violate some OSHA rule. In particular I thought each breaker would have to be tagged individually.

Glad to see the overall consensus here is that they are legal.
 
Thanks Dave. It is also a simple way lock out several breakers in the panel at the same time. Electricians will not use a lockout tagout device that is too much of an inconvenience. My intent was to get more electricians on board with lockout tagout. I got sick of seeing a piece of tape across a circuit breaker.
 
had a customer pry a breaker lockout off the breaker to his A/C ( yes I had a tag and lock with phone number to contact me ) at an HVAC upgrade project in large condo in Galveston...oddly enough when he energized it I had just stripped old rusted seal tite from conductors on roof and had the ends in my sweaty glove standing in small puddle of water. This incident almost killed me.
He was hastily brought up on charges and removed from property. This device in the OP would probably have helped me.:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top