Cover to panelboard

[cvirgil467]

An AHJ has sited us on the use of accessibility of circuit breakers within a panelboard. He said that since the panel board has a door, which is lockable, the breakers are not accessible.

I could not find anything in the NEC that would prevent us from removing the door to the panelboard which would make the breakers accessible. Any know of a UL issue with this. Or opinions?

Thanks.
C

 

[haskindm]

The AHJ is correct that the term accessible would prohibit the presence of locks. He is wrong in that over-current devices are NOT required to be accessible, they are required to be READILY ACCESSIBLE; there is a huge difference. If you read the definition of readily accessible there is no prohibition against locks. That is why even a service disconnect is allowed to be in a locked equipment room. As long as the person that requires access has the key, it is readily accessible.

 

[jim dungar]

I could not find anything in the NEC that would prevent us from removing the door to the panelboard which would make the breakers accessible. Any know of a UL issue with this. Or opinions

A hinged door covering only the breaker handles is not part of any testing that I am aware of. Breaker handles are regularly exposed on large power panels, small loadcenters, and single enclosed breakers.

Haskindm is correct, the NEC does not prevent breaker handles from being behind locked doors.

 

[charlie b]

This is not making sense to me. I would expect that the concept of ?readily accessible? would be more restrictive than merely ?accessible.? It is the difference (in common conversational English) between ?I can get there easily? and ?I can get there one way or another.? A panel need not be accessible, but it must be readily accessible? I don?t have to get to it, but I do have to get to it easily? I cannot believe that was the intent of the code authors.

The Article 100 definitions of these two terms are not as clear as one might think. For example, in the definition for ?accessible (as applied to equipment),? you could interpret the words, ?not guarded by locked doors? as including a locked panel cover door. Similarly, in the definition for ?readily accessible,? you could interpret the words, ?without requiring (persons) . . . to remove obstacles? as including a locked panel cover door as an obstacle that is not allowed to be in the way of reaching the equipment quickly for operation.

Can anyone enlighten me on this situation?

 

[rbalex]

In their historic NEC usage, readily accessible means those who have a right to access can get to something quickly but those without a right may be effectively prohibited; accessible means virtually anyone has access. It?s simply an anomaly developed long ago.

You are definitely not the only person to ?object? Charlie because the rules for accessible would intuitively include readily accessible. There was a Proposal a many cycles back to ?clarify? the issue. It was determined at the time that it would require too many auxiliary Proposals to accomplish the goal.

 

[nakulak]

my personal opinion is that the interpretation of "readily accessible" allowing a locked door is ludicrous.

 

[roger]

To go along with Bob's post here is the NECH commentary on readily accessible FWIW.

The definition of readily accessible does not preclude the use of a locked door for service equipment or rooms containing service equipment, provided those for whom ready access is necessary have a key (or lock combination) available. For example, 230.70(A)(1) and 230.205(A) require service-disconnecting means to be readily accessible. Section 225.32 requires that feeder disconnecting means for separate buildings be readily accessible. A commonly used, permitted practice is to locate the disconnecting means in the electrical equipment room of an office building or large apartment building and to keep the door to that room locked to prevent access by unauthorized persons. Section 240.24(A) requires that overcurrent devices be so located as to be readily accessible.

Roger

 

[haskindm]

Read the definitions of ACCESSIBLE and READILY ACCESSIBLE in article 100. It is obvious that in code usage ACCESSIBLE is more restrictive than READILY ACCESSIBLE. One explanation that I have heard is that READILY ACCESSIBLE means that the equipment may READILY be made ACCESSIBLE by unlocking a door, etc. We have to accept that the code uses language differently than we do in normal conversation. You must learn to "speak the language".

 

[iwire]

I could not find anything in the NEC that would prevent us from removing the door to the panel board which would make the breakers accessible. Any know of a UL issue with this.

Some panel doors, when removed will leave large openings into the panel from where the hinges used to be.


But I would not remove them anyway, millions of panels have lockable doors.

 

[stickboy1375]

An AHJ has sited us on the use of accessibility of circuit breakers within a panelboard. He said that since the panel board has a door, which is lockable, the breakers are not accessible.

I could not find anything in the NEC that would prevent us from removing the door to the panelboard which would make the breakers accessible. Any know of a UL issue with this. Or opinions?

Thanks.
C

Is that inspector saying I can't lock my house anymore? :grin:

 

[electricman2]

Is that inspector saying I can't lock my house anymore? :grin:

Thats correct. It must remain readily accessible to robbers and thieves.
IMO he is a few wirenuts short of a box.:wink:

 

[Bob Kraemer]

Damn good thing I wasn't there for that one because I would have popped a gasket, threw him out the door on his a$$ and told him don't come back without your boss.
Was this his FIRST commercial inspection????