# Locking panels



## mcsinco (Dec 17, 2009)

*locked panels*

No they don't have to be. So long you can close the door. The lock is an option to keep people out such as in public places, schools... 
It is merely a choice of the owner.


----------



## bobelectric (Feb 24, 2007)

Look up OSHA 1910 subpart S .


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

mcsinco said:


> No they don't have to be. *So long you can close the door.*


A door on the electric room or on the panel is not even required.


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

bobelectric said:


> Look up OSHA 1910 subpart S .


More of the mealy-mouthed, long winded epistles which leave us with, "Maybe yes, maybe no."

Does an unlocked panel expose workers to dangerous voltages? Yes. Does OSHA forbid such exposure? Yes.

So, if a worker reached into an unlocked panel with tinfoil wrapped arms and hands and got zapped, the facility would get the blame because the panel wasn't locked.

Tort reform....


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Please show us an example of OSHA fining for exposed breakers,


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> Please show us an example of OSHA fining for exposed breakers,


OSHA is typically "after the fact" which has been (and is) a problem with OSHA.


----------



## mcsinco (Dec 17, 2009)

*Panel Doors*

Having a Panel cover is required by the NEC, where energized parts are not exposed. Where the panel door would be functionality and safety requirement of the UL listing. I don't see why someone would install a non-compliant UL device. To my knowledge, no authority "state, county or city" would accept a non UL listed device to be used! If a panel cover is UL Listed without a door then a door is not a must!!!


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

waco said:


> OSHA is typically "after the fact" which has been (and is) a problem with OSHA.



OK so ya got nothing. :no:


----------



## mcsinco (Dec 17, 2009)

*Nec 110.27 (a)*



Bob Badger said:


> OK so ya got nothing. :no:


 
See NEC 2005 article 110.27 (A)
you find your answer


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

mcsinco said:


> :blink:
> 
> See NEC 2005 article 110.27 (A)
> you find your answer
> hope you have the book!!


Belal, before you decide to be a wise ass with me you might want make sure you know what the discussion is about.:laughing:


Welcome to the forum.


----------



## mcsinco (Dec 17, 2009)

so what is it about? since you were not clear in you r replay " OK so ya got nothing". it seems that you were being a smart ***. and there is no need to use such language. 
Thanks bob


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

mcsinco said:


> so what is it about? since you were not clear in you r replay "


I do not believe anyone in this discussion is saying panel covers can be left off exposing live parts.

What I have been taking about is breakers that remain exposed in panels that do not have covers for the breaker themselves. Like most switch gear and I-Line panels etc.



> OK so ya got nothing". it seems that you were being a smart ***.


I was.



> and there is no need to use such language.


I pretty much get to use the language I choose and when someone that does not know me at all makes a crack about my knowledge of the code I tend to respond harshly.:laughing:


----------



## mcsinco (Dec 17, 2009)

Sure Bob, 
If you noticed that the thread got that way. So although as you say everyone knows panel covers should always be there, yet”waco" has no idea. So some time you have to be too simple explaining.

Also regarding closing the doors. From experience with building inspectors and fire marshals, mechanical room doors must be closed. I had few sites where the owners where trying to avoid installing doors, or they wanted to keep them permanently open and did not pass building inspections


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> A door on the electric room or on the panel is not even required.


 Bob Badger said that. "...or on the panel is not even required."

Hmmmm.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

waco said:


> Bob Badger said that. "...or on the panel is not even required."
> 
> Hmmmm.


Yes I said it and I stand by that.

Unless you are telling me this panel is in violation.











A cover is required to cover any live parts, there is no requirement to have door on that cover to enclose the breakers.


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

I have never seen doors on I line breakers either. So that gear was in violation of what?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> Yes I said it and I stand by that.
> 
> Unless you are telling me this panel is in violation.
> 
> ...


Yes. Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me telling me breaker #6 is a tandem.



nolabama said:


> I have never seen doors on I line breakers either. So that gear was in violation of what?


The only thing I can think of is 240.41(B). But that doesn't apply to these situations.


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

480sparky said:


> Yes. Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me telling me breaker #6 is a tandem.


Its still 6 switches or is it not? I am not trying to start nothing just i count six throws to close???


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

nolabama said:


> Its still 6 switches or is it not? I am not trying to start nothing just i count six throws to close???


The question would be.... is that panel rated to accept tandems?


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

ohhh I see said the blind man


----------



## JayH (Nov 13, 2009)

nolabama said:


> ohhh I see said the blind man


...to the deaf mute.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Yes. Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me telling me breaker #6 is a tandem.


I'm sorry I figured grown men would stay within the context of the thread. :whistling2:

But you are right, this was a service panel and it is in violation of the six rule.

It, along with it's three brothers 










and meters










has since been removed


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

DO NOT anger the Badger.


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

whatcha put those doors on those panels for:laughing:


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

480sparky said:


> The question would be.... is that panel rated to accept tandems?


I saw that they(murray) made twin breakers to go into any panel. I didn't know this. IF the manufacturer makes a breaker that stabs onto a buss that wouldn't ordinarily accept twins, is still a violation?


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

NolaTigaBait said:


> DO NOT anger the Badger.



:laughing:


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Tell Dennis he did a nice hack job. :thumbup:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Peter D said:


> Tell Dennis he did a nice hack job. :thumbup:


The house has since exploded in a mushroom cloud because he used SE cable for service conductors.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> The house has since exploded in a mushroom cloud because he used SE cable for service conductors.


:lol: :lol:


----------



## JoeKP (Nov 16, 2009)

mcsinco said:


> No they don't have to be. So long you can close the door. The lock is an option to keep people out such as in public places, schools...
> It is merely a choice of the owner.


ok, sounds right, but what would you say if i told you that at my school, all of the panels are locked with a combination lock...?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

JoeKP said:


> ok, sounds right, but what would you say if i told you that at my school, all of the panels are locked with a combination lock...?


Is there a problem with that?


----------



## JoeKP (Nov 16, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Is there a problem with that?


im not positive, but im pretty sure there is, they screwed the padlock latch things on them, then put the combo-locks on


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

JoeKP said:


> im not positive, but im pretty sure there is, they screwed the padlock latch things on them, then put the combo-locks on


 
You mean a hasp?









I still don't see a problem.


----------



## JoeKP (Nov 16, 2009)

480sparky said:


> I still don't see a problem.


OK, but im gonna take some pics tomorrow, and show you.
and yes, a hasp, i couldnt think of the word


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

JoeKP said:


> OK, but im gonna take some pics tomorrow, and show you.
> and yes, a hasp, i couldnt think of the word


I'll hold my breath until then.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

I agree with 480, I see no problem. You can put padlocks on panel covers. You can even lock an electric room door.:cool2:


----------



## ampman (Apr 2, 2009)

480sparky said:


> The question would be.... is that panel rated to accept tandems?


 maybe a 6-12


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> Yes I said it and I stand by that.
> 
> Unless you are telling me this panel is in violation.
> 
> ...


I'd call that a cover, but you sure got me. Yep, in a pissing contest, you reign supreme, but the question was about locking panels and service rooms and, to my knowledge, there is no requirement for either although some jurisdictions require them to be accessible.

Funny thing is, winners of pissing contests are often the only ones who knew there was a pissing contest.

You win.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

waco said:


> Yep, in a pissing contest, you reign supreme,


Everyone has to be good at something. :laughing:





> but the question was about locking panels and service rooms and, to my knowledge, there is no requirement for either


I agree, and I was simply trying to point out that the breaker handles could be out in the open accessible to anyone.


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


>



That's a damn good looking service. :thumbsup:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Magnettica said:


> That's a damn good looking service. :thumbsup:


 
Not saying anything bad, but it seems there isn't much in the way of circuits in each one. Maybe 3-4 HRs in each?

Any reason?


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Not saying anything bad, but it seems there isn't much in the way of circuits in each one. Maybe 3-4 HRs in each?
> 
> Any reason?


Small apartments. Most apartments around here don't have much in the way of circuitry. It was not uncommon, once upon a time, for the entire apartment to be on one K&T or BX wired circuit. Over the years, as things were added, there might be a furnace circuit and maybe a circuit added for the fridge or counter.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Not saying anything bad, but it seems there isn't much in the way of circuits in each one. Maybe 3-4 HRs in each?
> 
> Any reason?


It's a cheep 5 family in a city, gas heat, gas dryer, gas range, no AC. It needed a service change and that is what my buddy gave it. He also fixed a few other safety issues as well as separating one units inter-wiring with another. But beyond that it has what it had.


----------

