Panel Lockout vs Individual Lockout

C

clarklewis

Member
Location
North Carolina
Occupation
Corporate Safety Director
We are industrial contractors working in healthcare, mission critical, and industrial. Safety is constantly being questioned on our policy of locking out individual circuits vs locking out an entire panel. I need some opinions.

Here is the scenario;

We have a 48 breaker panel. 38 of the breakers are open/off and 10 breakers are closed/on. We are not working in the panel itself. We are working on branch circuits on the load side of the breaker at termination points. Under NFPA 70E or OSHA 1926, can I place a panel lockout device on the panel if no work will be performed on any of the circuits that are on.
 
T
clarklewis said:
Under NFPA 70E or OSHA 1926, can I place a panel lockout device on the panel if no work will be performed on any of the circuits that are on.
Click to expand...
The common consensus, from safety groups, is the panel must be locked out up stream if there will be exposed energized parts, such as the incoming line terminals, within the panel board. This is one reason the NEC has added requirements for shielded line terminals on main breakers.
 
Please help me understand the situation. It sounds like you will be disconnecting a wire from the load side terminal of a breaker. First of all, is that right? If so, are you asking whether it would be OK to turn off the entire panel, perhaps by locking out its main breaker or by locking out the upstream breaker that feeds the panel? If so, that is OK.

Are you instead asking whether it would be OK to leave the entire panel energized, and only lock out the one breaker that is having its load side wire disconnected? If so, I will have to defer to other forum members for the answer.
 
charlie b said:
Please help me understand the situation. It sounds like you will be disconnecting a wire from the load side terminal of a breaker. First of all, is that right? If so, are you asking whether it would be OK to turn off the entire panel, perhaps by locking out its main breaker or by locking out the upstream breaker that feeds the panel? If so, that is OK.

Are you instead asking whether it would be OK to leave the entire panel energized, and only lock out the one breaker that is having its load side wire disconnected? If so, I will have to defer to other forum members for the answer.
Click to expand...
We have a 48 breaker panel. In the panel there are 38 breakers that are off and 10 that are on. Our policy is that each of the 38 breakers be individually locked out and tagged. There is no work being performed in or on the panel. The work is at the termination point controlled by each breaker. Some of our foremen and superintendents feel that they should be able to use a panel lock and lock the panel instead of using the 38 individual locks. Their argument is that this meets the definition of "rendered inoperable" under 1926.417 and "safeguarding employees from exposure to electrical hazards." under NFPA 70E Section 120.5(A)(4). What is your opinion?
 
jim dungar said:
T

The common consensus, from safety groups, is the panel must be locked out up stream if there will be exposed energized parts, such as the incoming line terminals, within the panel board. This is one reason the NEC has added requirements for shielded line terminals on main breakers.
Click to expand...
charlie b said:
Please help me understand the situation. It sounds like you will be disconnecting a wire from the load side terminal of a breaker. First of all, is that right? If so, are you asking whether it would be OK to turn off the entire panel, perhaps by locking out its main breaker or by locking out the upstream breaker that feeds the panel? If so, that is OK.

Are you instead asking whether it would be OK to leave the entire panel energized, and only lock out the one breaker that is having its load side wire disconnected? If so, I will have to defer to other forum members for the answer.
Click to expand...
The OP is not working on the panel itself, but has multiple breakers off, and instead of individually locking the breakers, locking the entire panel. I designed and built locks that specifically do that. Multiple lock and tag hasps are used when multiple employees are working out of that panel. OSHA inspectors has seen my design, and liked it.
 
Yes, the OP can lockout the entire panel rather than having to lock each individual breaker for work exterior to he panelboard.
 
jim dungar said:
Yes, the OP can lockout the entire panel rather than having to lock each individual breaker for work exterior to he panelboard.
Click to expand...
In this event we would have special conditions as follows;
  • Verify zero voltage at each termination point where work is being performed
  • Tag each locked-out circuit with worker identification
  • Document which circuits are de-energized vs. which remain energized
  • Each worker performing work at a termination point should have their own lock on the energy isolating device per NFPA 70E Section 120.4(A)(4), which requires each worker to be responsible for his or her own lockout/tagout
Can you think of anything else that may be necessary?
 
Using t
jim dungar said:
Locking the panelboard  door is not sufficient. If some circuits are going to remain On you would need to put individual locks on the circuits you want deenergized.
Click to expand...
Using the factory door lock, that is correct, but using a locking bar that prevents the door from being opened and or removed is. Each person that is working on any of the circuits turned off must have their own lock and tag on the bar, and bar cannot be removed without all locks and tags removed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top