I've got a question about an install that was recently red-flagged by the fire marshall. A lazy electrician installed a new Siemens panel inside of an old FPE panel. The new panel is much smaller and shallower, so he removed the guts from the old panel, took out the 2.5" k.o. from the new panel, and just routed the existing conductors through the k.o. and into the new panel (he at least used a close nipple). Is this a violation or just piss-poor workmanship?
Violation or Not?
- Thread starter A-1Sparky
- Start date
- Status
hardworkingstiff
Senior Member
- Location
- Wilmington, NC
Are these my only 2 choices?
Why did the FM red-flag it? What was the basis of his opinion, code or just gut?
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
I don't really see anything wrong with what he did, although it is entirely possible you left out some pertinent facts.
I think he's saying that it's not installed in a workman-like manner. And yes, the conductors (thhn, mtw, thw) are open to the world as soon as you open the outside panel cover, and from there go through the chase nipple into the new panel. I would love to post a pic, but Santa hasn't brought me a digital camera yet. 
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
I think he's saying that it's not installed in a workman-like manner. And yes, the conductors (thhn, mtw, thw) are open to the world as soon as you open the outside panel cover, and from there go through the chase nipple into the new panel. I would love to post a pic, but Santa hasn't brought me a digital camera yet.
Sounds compliant to me.
mcclary's electrical
Senior Member
- Location
- VA
What did he do with the covers?
Is the smaller cover installed, and the larger cover installed over that?? that would be a violation, and secondly,,,,,if he leaves the smaller cover off, and only puts on the larger cover, that's not sealing things up and I bet that's what the fire marshall doesn't like.
Is the smaller cover installed, and the larger cover installed over that?? that would be a violation, and secondly,,,,,if he leaves the smaller cover off, and only puts on the larger cover, that's not sealing things up and I bet that's what the fire marshall doesn't like.
hardworkingstiff
Senior Member
- Location
- Wilmington, NC
Just curious, what's the violation (code reference)?
Tonybugs72
Member
I have seen a similar install, they framed around the inside new panel so it would be accessible without removing the outside cover. It sure didn't hurt that there was a fabricating shop on site.
mcclary's electrical
Senior Member
- Location
- VA
Since the smaller panel is the ome in operation,,,,,the larger panell violates 110.26 IMO
possibly 110.13 (b)
Last edited:
Jim W in Tampa
Senior Member
- Location
- Tampa Florida
Was this job permitted and inspected ? Should the EI having problem with it. I won't judge without picture
hardworkingstiff
Senior Member
- Location
- Wilmington, NC
Seems to me 110.26 is about working clearances not anything with installing a panel inside a different frame.
110.13 (b) I guess could apply if the new panel is a surface mounted panel, but I don't think it really is a problem.
I may be wrong though.
mcclary's electrical
Senior Member
- Location
- VA
That's my point, working clearance. The smaller panel is the one in operation. The larger panel overlapping the smaller panel is violating the working space requirements of 110.26
hardworkingstiff
Senior Member
- Location
- Wilmington, NC
OK, I'm reading 110.26 to try to see what you are talking about and here is what I see.
110.26(A)(1) they still have the 3' so not a violation.
110.26(A)(2) they still have the 30" so not a violation.
110.26(A)(3) the still have the height so not a violation.
110.26(B) if it met this requirement, it still does.
Actually, installing a panel inside the panel just does not violate anything that I see in 110.26.
Now, I'm not saying this install is code compliant (and I'm not saying it isn't). I'm just saying I don't see where it violates 110.26.
I also would like to see a picture. I don't know how they can cover the wiring inside the old enclosure. I imagine from the OP that one must open the old cover to access the new panel and breakers. What I don't know is if there is a breaker cover on the new panel cover and how much space is between the opening on the old cover and the sides of the new panel cover. Other than exposed wiring in that space I don't see this as a hazard (assuming bonding of the old can was performed and the nipple is properly installed).
Just because it's not a hazard doesn't mean it's code compliant, but 110.26 is not violated as best as I can tell.
it sounds to me like this is a panelboard in a cabinet, that is installed in an existing cabinet. Although it sounds a little hacky, is it really a violation if this is the case ? let's make the assumption that the larger cabinet is either locked or accessible to qualified individuals only - would that be a violation ?
- Status