Un-lockable Temp Service

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gumbyElvis

Member
I am the Electrical Trades Instructor at Lewis and Clark Career Center in St. Charles, MO. Our class wires a home each year that the Building Trades Class puts up. My question is this,
The Temporary Service for the construction project is accessible to unqualified persons (lots of carpenter students, local children) Someone cut the hasp off of the panel out at the house, and according to NEC 525.11(A) Service equipment shall not be installed in a location that is accessible to unqualified persons, unless the equipment is lockable.

My reading of the code book required me to remove the panel from service as it was no longer lockable. I called the local Electrical Inspector's office and they recommended I 1) Chain the panel shut 2)Remove the inspection sticker 3) Call the power company and have the meter pulled 4) Replace the panel 5) Call for re-inspection 6) Call the Power company for the meter to be re-installed after it passed the inspection.
I know all of this is standard, but my administration is now saying I should not have pulled the panel (I sent them the code reference above but they remain convinced I should have left an un-lockable panel until I could have installed a hasp on it.) I explained that installing a hasp violates Article 110.3(B) as it would not be the listed or labeled use to modify a panel. As I said I had checked with the AHJ and he had told me specifically not to modify the panel or put a hasp on it but to lock it with a chain. Anybody care to comment, in particular I would love to hear from Licensed Master Electricians?
Rob
 
Re: Un-lockable Temp Service

I can not see how field adding (actually replacing) a hasp would violate 110.3(B), unless the integrity (i.e. the NEMA rating) of the enclosure was compromised.

110.3(B) is for "mis-use" of a product, like mounting a base-up bulb in a base-down position, or mounting an indoor enclosure outdoors.
 
Re: Un-lockable Temp Service

Article 525.11(A) Service equipment shall not be installed in a location that is accessible to unqualified persons, unless the equipment is lockable. sets a standard for access to unlockable services and the access by unqualified persons. While not at a Carnival, Circus, Fair it could be a similar event. OK it's not circus but there are a lot of people there Building Trades (30 or so kids), HVAC (30 or so kids), Electrical Trades (30 or so kids), Brick and Stone (30 or so kids). In some ways it is a lot like a circus! I also think 11.3(A)(8) would apply.
 
Re: Un-lockable Temp Service

"I can not see how field adding (actually replacing) a hasp would violate 110.3(B), unless the integrity (i.e. the NEMA rating) of the enclosure was compromised." I spoke with the AHJ and it was his opinion that this did in fact violate 110.3(B) I also called the maker of a NEMA 3 rated panel and it was his opinion that drilling the NEMA 3 panel would violate its NEMA 3 rating.

110.3(B) is for "mis-use" of a product, like mounting a base-up bulb in a base-down position, or mounting an indoor enclosure outdoors.
I attended a training seminar with Joe Tedesco this fall where he specifically mentioned adding a hasp to a panel as violating this part of the code.
 
Re: Un-lockable Temp Service

You have got that right, just throw in to the mix other students cutting our wires, throwing nails at us, breaking our boxes etc. and you get the idea. It can be very circus-like. Some days it seems all we are missing is the large animals, we already have our share of clowns!
 
Re: Un-lockable Temp Service

Originally posted by gumbyElvis: While not at a Carnival, Circus, Fair it could be a similar event.
Click to expand...
Any similarity would be irrelevant. Any of those three events will be attended by thousands of people. You don't want someone (who thinks it would be fun) to turn off power to a ride while there are people on the ride. That is not the same as having a number of adults and kids working on a house. There is no danger of a person falling off a ride if some kid turns off power. The hazard is not the same, and the rules are not the same. I would say your actions were conservative, but they were not required by the NEC.
 
Re: Un-lockable Temp Service

Originally posted by gumbyElvis:I attended a training seminar with Joe Tedesco this fall where he specifically mentioned adding a hasp to a panel as violating this part of the code.
Click to expand...
Without intending any disrespect to that person or to anyone else engaged in the instructing trade, you should never take an action on the basis of what another person says. You should take action first and foremost on your perception of any hazards that place the health and safety of the public at risk. Absent any immediate hazards, you should take action on the basis of what the law (i.e., the code) says. But it doesn't say what you think it says (where have I heard that before?). It says what it says. So go read the code, and do what it says to do. In your case, the rules about circuses do not apply, but the rules related to temporary installations do apply.
 
Re: Un-lockable Temp Service

You should take action first and foremost on your perception of any hazards that place the health and safety of the public at risk. Absent any immediate hazards, you should take action on the basis of what the law (i.e., the code) says.
Click to expand...
I originally locked panel because of circuits in it being in violation and in my opinion they were safety hazards (cracked receptacles, missing weatherproof in-use covers etc.). When I took the circuits out of service I removed the breakers (standard practice when I worked at McDonnell Douglas as an Electrician for 5 years, and when I worked in the USA Army) to keep anyone from turning the faulty circuit back on. I taped the ungrounded conductors up and locked the panel shut. I did not have any blanks with me to safe the holes left when I removed the breakers, hence locking the panel until I could return with the blanks, or parts to fix the circuits in question including the breakers. Also, we always removed the breakers so someone could hook the defective circuits back up if we removed them from the breakers. We are talking 110 volt branch circuits here not large feeders etc. and at McDonnell Douglas it would often be a circuit branch circuit feeding from a disconnect with fuses which we would take in put in our pouch. The way I see it when I go to training the reason I am there is because the other guy knows more than I do. I try to implement what they teach, I figure that's the reason I went.
So, if you were working with a school at a house full of kids and someone cut your hasp (not the lock, the hasp) on the panel making it where you could no longer lock it out and protect yourself and your students while you worked on any circuits that ran from that panel without fear of someone turning them back on you would be fine with that?
 
Re: Un-lockable Temp Service

Originally posted by gumbyElvis:So, if you were working with a school at a house full of kids and someone cut your hasp (not the lock, the hasp) on the panel making it where you could no longer lock it out and protect yourself and your students while you worked on any circuits that ran from that panel without fear of someone turning them back on you would be fine with that?
Click to expand...
Probably not. But it is not the NEC that would have compelled you to take the action that you took. It was your sense of what is, and what is not safe. That is honorable, indeed worthy of praise. But you don't get to say that "you had to do it because the code said you had to do it."
 
Re: Un-lockable Temp Service

Locking a panel cover is not an acceptable method to achieve compliance with an OSHA "Lock Out- Tag Out" requirement, but I can see your reason for wanting to do so in this situation.

For what it is worth, my opinion of a field added hasp in regards to 110.3(B) is just as valid as any other person's. The only opinion that counts is that of the ruling AHJ. But I am at a loss as to why your AHJ made a ruling that it would be against a manufacturers instructions. Did the instructions specifically address field drilled holes (including conduit entries) in their enclosures? If not, 110.3(A) is probably the more valid code article for the decision.
 
Re: Un-lockable Temp Service

I would have left the breakers in the panel, rather then leave the holes in the cover. IMHO, if anyone is going to go through all the trouble of opening a cover and landing a hot and neutral to turn a circuit on while you are working, is going to get you one way or another.

And, I hope that putting a hasp on a panel is not illegal, because I have done this a few times in the past. I think that it is hoffman, that makes a kit for it.
 
Re: Un-lockable Temp Service

Just imagine if in the real world t poles were de energized for a broken hasp.You would think W W 3 had started :D What shut down a project over a stupid hasp :roll:
 
Re: Un-lockable Temp Service

Just imagine if in the real world t poles were de energized for a broken hasp.
Click to expand...
Imagine in the "real world" if you were responsible for 15 cubs, and there were 15 carpenter cubs all at the same house at the same time. I try to simulate the real world, but I can only do so much!

Sounds like a good place to teach the students about "The Generator" next year.
Click to expand...
Yea, they are putting on the shingles now and I have to call in the Power Company to hook up the new service today. It's 14 degrees and a bit windy. It was about 70 degrees when this all started.

rob

Rob
 
Re: Un-lockable Temp Service

It is admirable that you look out for the well being of those under your control,that is required to be done.But as stated there is nothing in the NEC that goes along with taking a t pole out of service for a broken hasp.
Part of your teachings should include job safety.Hard hats,approved work shoes,eye protection,watching out for potentially dangerous situations.I`ve seen more guys hurt from not being properly instructed in how to use a 1/2 in. hole hog or a rotary chipping hammer with an 18 X 1/2 in bit drilling through a solid pour than I have seen injury #1 from a broken hasp ;) Especially young guys that think they can man handle a 1/2 in. drill as they drill through 2 X 6 double top plates and without the proper instruction snap their wrist lick a rag doll.
I`m sure that watching after 15 young testosterone filled guys is a task.I had a guy tell me that he couldn`t finish a job because the chipping hammer he checked out that morning didn`t have a rotary bit.After a few heated min. of conversation in which he stated it was not his job to make sure there was a bit in the tool he checked out.I went to my truck and came back with a 1 X 24 in star drill and a 10 lb engineers hammer,When he asked what was he supposed to do with these I told him drill your 2 coach light holes and finish the job or roll it up and go home for the day.That afternoon he returned the star drill and hammer to me and said he will make sure he had all the right equiptment the next time.He never wanted to see that thing again :eek:
So I can understand your dilema but don`t stop the world because it isn`t spinning the way you `d like it to,Teach the job,safety,and common sensce.The world doesn`t stop for a broken hasp.These are my opinions and you have yours somewhere you have to teach these guys the common line between both.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top