• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Breakers locked closed

Mr. Inspector

Mr. Inspector

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
4,114
Location
Poconos/eastern PA
These bolted locks were put on the breaker handles after I did the final inspection and they got the C. O. They keep anyone from turning off the breakers but do not keep the breakers from tripping. The fire company asked me about them on their inspection. I don't think they are allowed by the NEC. Has anyone else seen these?

breakers.jpg
 
I have not encountered those. What circuits are involved? Are they multi-wire branch circuits? Do they prevent the breaker from being reset after a trip?
 
Last edited:
Unless they prevent the breakers from tripping I don't see anything wrong with them even if you can't reset a tripped breaker without removing them. You have any manufacturers information on them?
 
There is no NEC requirement that forbids locking a breaker open or closed, as long as it will still trip.

A similar question that comes up occasionally is whether someone can put a padlock on the exterior service disconnect for the building to avoid people shutting off power to the building as a prank. The answer is that you are absolutely allowed to lock it, and if the firefighters need to shut off the power, they have all manner of tools to get that lock off quickly at their disposal.

Side note, I have had electricians attempt to use those same cute little devices as the provided means to make a disconnect lockable because it was out of sight for the equipment served. I shot them down on that because I do not think they comply with 110.25. There is no definition of "lock" or "lockable" in the NEC, but one of the definitions from Merriam-Webster is "a fastening (as for a door) operated by a key or a combination". I do not think a Philips screw complies in an objective sense, and it definitely does not meet intent - the lockable device is provided for lock-out tag-out purposes.
 
Last edited:
210.4 (B) Disconnecting Means.
Each multiwire branch circuit shall be provided with a means that will simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded conductors at the point where the branch circuit originates.

Informational Note: See 240.15(B) for information on the use of single-pole circuit breakers as the disconnecting means.

240.15 (B) Circuit Breaker as Overcurrent Device.
Circuit breakers shall open all ungrounded conductors of the circuit both manually and automatically unless otherwise permitted in 240.15(B)(1), (B)(2), (B)(3),and (B)(4)

It isn't a difficult stretch to cite this code to reject the device that renders a circuit breaker inoperable as a switch.
 
ICE said:
It isn't a difficult stretch to cite this code to reject the device that renders a circuit breaker inoperable as a switch.
Click to expand...
Sure, you can do it manually, just pull out your screwdriver and remove the little lock. Think of it more as a reminder to the user that "this circuit is special--do you really want to shut it off?" Same idea as those little plastic devices for toggle switches, shown below.

Cheers, Wayne

61r76bU-ecL._SX522_.jpg
 
wwhitney said:
Same idea as those little plastic devices for toggle switches, shown below.
Click to expand...
Is there a similar code that deals with toggle switches? I am reminded of a keyed deadbolt on a required egress door. As you know, that is illegal but how about if the key is left in the lock? The idea that if you do this...you are back to that negates code.
 
ICE said:
It isn't a difficult stretch
Click to expand...
Not for a tiger - they are usually quite limber, especially when equipped with 110.2...;)

I don't think circuit breakers as branch circuit disconnects are intended for emergency shut-off purposes, they are intended for servicing equipment. Emergency disconnects are specified elsewhere for other items with specific language that is not found regarding branch circuits in general. If you are servicing the equipment, you pretty much have to have a screwdriver, and those blockers would not pose any difficulty.
 
I think folks do this for circuits serving security systems or computer systems they don't want to accidentally get shut off.
 
Rick18071 said:
i don't see anything about locking a spa emergency switch in the NEC. So does that mean it's ok to lock it closed too?
Click to expand...
Just the use of the term "emergency" switch in the NEC suggests by itself that it should not be locked closed. Since it needs to be operable in an emergency.

And that further suggests that other disconnect switches not called emergency switches in the NEC are not intended for emergency use, and that no such prohibition would apply.

No NEC violation in the photo in the OP.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Just the use of the term "emergency" switch in the NEC suggests by itself that it should not be locked closed. Since it needs to be operable in an emergency.

And that further suggests that other disconnect switches not called emergency switches in the NEC are not intended for emergency use, and that no such prohibition would apply.

No NEC violation in the photo in the OP.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Suggesting's are not code. The firemen want to use all breakers for emergencies.
What about the disconnect required by a public swimming pool?
 
Rick18071 said:
Suggesting's are not code.
Click to expand...
That's true. To fail the installation in the OP, you should find an NEC section that says this disconnect shall not be locked closed. Or shall be operable without tools. Or something like that.

I think your best bet would be 240.24(A) which says ". . . circuit breakers shall be readily accessible . . ." Along with the definition of readily accessible, which starts off "Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to take actions such as to use tools (other than keys) . . ."

Now you have to decide whether that definition means you just need to be able to reach the circuit breaker without using tools, or whether it is implicit that you should be able to "operate, renew, or inspect" the circuit breaker without using tools. I would favor the former interpretation, as the latter would, for example, seem to preclude using screws to hold on the panel dead front, which you need to remove in order to inspect the circuit breaker.

Cheers, Wayne
 
I think don't think there is a prohibition to locking the whole panel, at least in your home, so why would locking a single breaker matter?

If it's not allowed, ironic the there are UL listed devices to permit locking breaker on or closed.
 
wwhitney said:
Capable of being reached quickly for operation
Click to expand...
Accessing the breakers quickly and then not being able to operate them until a screwdriver is utilized seems counterintuitive.

There are two sides to the position and both have merit. For other than a code required emergency disconnect….pick a side.
 
ICE said:
Accessing the breakers quickly and then not being able to operate them until a screwdriver is utilized seems counterintuitive.

There are two sides to the position and both have merit. For other than a code required emergency disconnect….pick a side.
Click to expand...
Flip the main breaker at the top of the panel. Tell them you are testing the emergency lights.
 
1.) not sure for computers because if you really cared you would have them on a UPS, but understand
2.) Last Time I checked the FD was not going threw a list of breakers to kill power on one when they needed to shut down power, main service simplest!
3.) depending on the facility might be refrigeration units in a doctor's office where they keep samples or a lab for that matter.
4.) The facility might shut certain circuits down at night when closed, want to make sure others stay on.
5.) Might be the CEO's wine cooler or the Keg at a club, ;>)

Pretty much doesn't matter, they don't stop the safety of the breaker tripping and they prevent the power being turned off by accident.

If the FD is worried, tell them to request a string or small chain with a screwdriver attached and someplace visible for easy reach and use.

I know little things count sometimes, but really?
 
Rick18071 said:
Suggesting's are not code.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the NEC has a lot of unwritten rules you are supposed to use for interpretation that you would never know by just reading the book.

What is an Auxiliary Grounding Electrode? It's not defined, and it could make a big difference since none of the normal rules apply to an auxiliary electrode.

What is a receptacle? They changed the definition in the 2020 code, and now a strict reading of the definition would include anything you can screw a lightbulb into - which would require GFCI protection in some areas of the house for lighting.

The requirement to install a Ufer / concrete encased electrode at any building with rebar in the foundation is based on the verbiage in 250.50 about bonding all electrodes present together. Is the rebar actually an electrode if it is not accessible to be bonded? How would you know that by just going with what the book says? Why didn't they just say "a concrete encased electrode shall be installed at every new structure with a foundation that is continuous for 20' or more."?

Are you supposed to install outlets around a kitchen island according to the 6'/12' spacing because it is a "fixed room divider" by definition? Or do you only require the Island and Peninsular Countertop outlets? I think standard practice is to just require the countertop outlets, but how would you know that by just reading the book?

The NEC has a lot of tradition around it that is not written down in the NEC itself. I think that is because it is 100 years old (or so), where our I-codes are only 20 or so. If I don't know, I usually end up going with whatever Mike Holt thinks... It ain't a great system, but it's safe for me since I can point to a recognized source...
 
Nothing in the codes prohibits their use. UL 489 is the listing. They have nothing to do with " readily accessible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top