Improper use of panel as a raceway?

Status
Not open for further replies.

tonype

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Left panel in photos is where SEC enters. There are some splices before the main breaker (200-amps) that service the right panel (with a separate 150-amp breaker. Is this legit (brand new install, though no permit was taken). My experience is that a cable tray or raceway (not sure if my wording is correct) before the panels is used when doing some thing like this.
 

Attachments

  • DSCF1837.jpg
    DSCF1837.jpg
    129.2 KB · Views: 1
  • DSCF1836_edited-1.jpg
    DSCF1836_edited-1.jpg
    144.1 KB · Views: 0

tonype

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
As you can probably tell, a sump pump was put in the floor directly below the left panel in the photo. Several EGC and grounded conductors also share terminal bar screws.
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
As you can probably tell, a sump pump was put in the floor directly below the left panel in the photo. Several EGC and grounded conductors also share terminal bar screws.
generally sharing terminals is allowed for EGC but not for grounded conductors.

it is messy but I am not sure I see anything that is a specific code violation.
 

mwm1752

Senior Member
Location
Aspen, Colo
230.32 in the context of the picture. --- 250.118 charging statemnt for EGC The equipment grounding conductor run with or enclosing the circuit conductors -- might have value
 
Last edited:

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
What grounded conductor -- oorrr where's the equipment ground? this can't be unfused entering the panel (SER)
It can be if it is the service disconnecting means. If the load calculation is not more then the service conductor ampacity then the addition of the second panel containing a second service disconnect is not a violation either. Is rough looking work and may be other violations but the concept of adding the second panel (in general) may actually be permissible.


Tony,

the splices are not made in the panelboard, the panelboard is the assembly that contains the bus structure and breakers, it is installed in a cabinet, and the splices in question are made in the cabinet.

312.8 allows these splices to be made with 40 percent conductor fill in any cross sectional space and splice and tap devices can be up to 75 percent cross sectional fill.

You also have wire bending space requirements to think about though.
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
There seems to be an EGC going to the second panel but no neutral. that would be OK if there were only 240V circuits being wired out of that panel. I can't tell from the pictures if there are any neutrals used in the second panel.

Again, I am not sure I see anything that is for sure a violation. It is pretty messy though.
 

tonype

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
It can be if it is the service disconnecting means. If the load calculation is not more then the service conductor ampacity then the addition of the second panel containing a second service disconnect is not a violation either. Is rough looking work and may be other violations but the concept of adding the second panel (in general) may actually be permissible.


Tony,

the splices are not made in the panelboard, the panelboard is the assembly that contains the bus structure and breakers, it is installed in a cabinet, and the splices in question are made in the cabinet.

312.8 allows these splices to be made with 40 percent conductor fill in any cross sectional space and splice and tap devices can be up to 75 percent cross sectional fill.

You also have wire bending space requirements to think about though.

Thank you for the explanation - helps my understanding :)
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
There seems to be an EGC going to the second panel but no neutral. that would be OK if there were only 240V circuits being wired out of that panel. I can't tell from the pictures if there are any neutrals used in the second panel.

Again, I am not sure I see anything that is for sure a violation. It is pretty messy though.

If the left panel was originally the service equipment, then the tap to the right panel is still service conductors, and there are now two service disconnecting means. This can be legal, both panels may need a connection to grounding electrode, or GEC could connect to a point ahead of both.

A service conductor supplying a single service disconnecting means needs to be protected at or below the conductor ampacity (next standard overcurrent device size rule applies).

A service conductor supplying multiple service disconnecting means only needs to be sized to the calculated load it serves. This install may have less wrong it code wise then some may initially think.
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
The service entrance conductors combined with the "tap" conductors are too long to have the OCPD be nearest the entry into the structure.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
The service entrance conductors combined with the "tap" conductors are too long to have the OCPD be nearest the entry into the structure.
That is totally dependent on local rules or interpretations. Some places you don't enter at all with service conductors, others set strict limits on length of service conductor allowed to enter.
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
That is totally dependent on local rules or interpretations. Some places you don't enter at all with service conductors, others set strict limits on length of service conductor allowed to enter.

Around here the installation in the photo wouldn't fly. Even if you allowed the one panel to be spliced off of the other they could have gone straight from one panel to the other to limit the unfused SEC's within the structure.
 

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired)
I don't see a "panel used as raceway" violation but even it it was present it would be way down the list of violations or potential violations..
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Around here the installation in the photo wouldn't fly. Even if you allowed the one panel to be spliced off of the other they could have gone straight from one panel to the other to limit the unfused SEC's within the structure.
I will agree there are ways to make the amount of SE conductors inside the structure shorter. A close nipple between them being one of the ways to keep it as short as possible. Some residential guys don't know what a raceway is though;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top