code violation or not ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stew

Senior Member
Location
federal way,washington
an old zinsco panel 125 amp being fed thru the back from the meter. We remove the dastardly guts put a 1.5 inch nipple 3 inches to the right and hang our new c/h panel. we bond all this properly. We splice all our branch circuits in the old zinsco and use snap ins in both panels where needed and two screw clamps where needed. all these branch circuit conductors leave the old panel and reenter the new. Ok so far? Now we spin the exixsting service conductors which enter the back of the old panel thru the aformentiioned nipple to the new panel and terminate to the breaker. Code violation?

[ February 23, 2006, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: stew ]
 
Re: code violation or not ?

Originally posted by stew:
Now we spin the exixsting service conductors which enter the back of the old panel thru the aformentiioned nipple to the new panel and terminate to the breaker. Code violation?
Click to expand...
200px-Red_Flag_waving.png

=Violation=

2002 NEC:
230.7 Other Conductors in Raceway or Cable.
Conductors other than service conductors shall not be installed in the same service raceway or service cable.
Click to expand...
 
Re: code violation or not ?

and to think they were all in that box playing nicely together for so many years! now we leave the box and viola!!! They had no problem living together for 20 years and now they cant be compatable. divorced by 230.7 eh?
 
Re: code violation or not ?

Originally posted by stew:
They had no problem living together for 20 years and now they cant be compatable. divorced by 230.7 eh?
Click to expand...
Sure..and why not?
The amount of current that could be imposed on feeder or branch-circuit conductors, should they be in the same raceway and a fault occur, would be much higher than the ampacity of the feeder or branch-circuit conductors.
Click to expand...
...from 2002 NECH.

Where did the 20 years come from?
Has electricity only been around for 1/2 my life?
:D :D
 
Re: code violation or not ?

Ok, but what if the service conductors had its own nipple?. Is the old panel a raceway? Sounds more like a pull or junction box to me and 230.7 does not prohibit this?
 
Re: code violation or not ?

Originally posted by websparky:
Electro,
Read the definition in 100. There is not much that couldn't be considered a raceway. :)
Click to expand...
Be careful Dave or you will be prohibiting branch circuits from service panels. :D
 
Re: code violation or not ?

Originally posted by electrofelon:
Ok, but what if the service conductors had its own nipple?. Is the old panel a raceway? Sounds more like a pull or junction box to me and 230.7 does not prohibit this?
Click to expand...
The extra nipple would be nice...but the old panel would still need to be considered.
I would consider it to be a raceway.
While the commentary in the NECH is not enforcable, it shows what is the intent of 230.7 .
Below is the full commentary from the 2002 NECH in regards to 230.7:

All feeder and branch-circuit conductors must be separated from service conductors. Service conductors are not provided with overcurrent protection where they receive their supply; they are protected against overload conditions at their load end by the service disconnect fuses or circuit breakers. The amount of current that could be imposed on feeder or branch-circuit conductors, should they be in the same raceway and a fault occur, would be much higher than the ampacity of the feeder or branch-circuit conductors.
Click to expand...
Does anyone see an issue with this?
A couple of rigid couplings, a couple of sealtight connectors, and a few feet of sealtight - this mess would "seperate" the service conductors from the branch circuits.
Issue besides that it would look totally DIY.
 
Re: code violation or not ?

Again I point out that if you call enclosures raceways in this instance we will have a serious problem at the service panel. :p

That aside I would keep them separate for the reasons Celtic pointed out.
 
Re: code violation or not ?

my point is that these conductors were adjacent to one another in the original panel and the 8 inches of service condcutor that was unfused or protected was adjacent to these branch conductors for over 20 years. now we leave the exact same panel thru a dedicated nipple and somehow the condition has changed. I know what the code says but come on if it was legal before what has changed except wording????????????? They are stil in exactly the same situation as before. As a matter of fact there is more separation now than when they were originally inststalled crossing over these DANGROUSLY UNPROTECTED service wires. Maybe the manufacturers should devise a panel wherein there is mechanical separation at all times of service wire and branch circuits. ??? Then these nasty old service wires some of which come in at the bottom of a panel and run all the way up and against the branch circuit conductors would be all alone by there dangerous old selves.Sorry but this makes no sense to me whatsoever but of course I will change it kicking and screaming all the way.
 
Re: code violation or not ?

Ok folks not to belabor this but look carefully at the code definition of a raceway. Junction boxes are not listed as raceways are they or am I not getting it?

[ February 24, 2006, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: stew ]
 
Re: code violation or not ?

Originally posted by stew:
my point is that these conductors were adjacent to one another in the original panel and the 8 inches of service condcutor that was unfused or protected was adjacent to these branch conductors for over 20 years.
Click to expand...
Adjacent does not mean running in the same nipple...


Originally posted by stew:
now we leave the exact same panel thru a dedicated nipple and somehow the condition has changed.
Click to expand...
...and now we added a nipple...but still use the panel as a raceway.

Kick and scream all you want - to ME, it looks like a violation STILL. ...but little ol' ME is not the AHJ - ask him!


What is a junction box?
What is a raceway?

Is a raceway a junction box w/o holes?

EDIT:
Originally posted by iwire:


That aside I would keep them separate for the reasons Celtic pointed out.
Click to expand...
While I would love to claim that snippet as mine - we all know I'm not that bright :D

[ February 24, 2006, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: celtic ]
 
Re: code violation or not ?

celtic they were never in the same nipple but they were in the exact same panel/j box. hmmmmmm.If the conditions havent changed then whats the problem except someones interpretation of what a "raceway" is or is not.
 
Re: code violation or not ?

Originally posted by stew:
hmmmmmm.If the conditions havent changed then whats the problem except someones interpretation of what a "raceway" is or is not.
Click to expand...
"Someone" would be your AHJ...but the conditions HAVE changed...your old panel is now a raceway, junction box, pull box - whatever you want to call it...just don't call it a panel.
 
Re: code violation or not ?

It is only a raceway in your opinion however. In my opinion it is not a racweway at all only the connecting nipple is a raceway as defined by the code. The panel is now a junction box and by the defintion given in article 100 not a raceway.
 
Re: code violation or not ?

Originally posted by stew:
It is only a raceway in your opinion however. In my opinion it is not a racweway at all only the connecting nipple is a raceway as defined by the code. The panel is now a junction box and by the defintion given in article 100 not a raceway.
Click to expand...
Is this Junction Box installed between the start of the conductor run and the end? If it is then it is part of the raceway system unless the raceway system does not land in this Junction Box at any point.

Now put you a permanent barrier between the SE conductors and the rest of the panel and you are good to go.
:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top