Inspectors / AHJ's do you enforce 312.5(C)?

[Dennis Alwon]

Yeah I agree I selected that photo to emphasize new construction, if we are going to look the other way on one type of outdoor panel then naturally people will just want to stop using strain reliefs on all panels and just use chase nipples....

Now this, IMO should not be allowed because it is possible to use the ko's in the panel (that is how we do it--rx connectors). The outdoor panel is another issue and is below the buss with the entry. I never see those entries sealed and IMO that is a bad idea. Personally I would rather see a 2" nm Connector with all those wires in it then what I see there

 

[Dennis Alwon]

But making the proper KO's is not impossible therefore your judgement call amounts to you enforcing your own code.

On an exterior panel I believe it is close to impossible and if possible it would be a mess to the building structure. In the picture above I would not allow that as I have always routing my wires into nm connectors. You have the top and the bottom to use it so it is possible

 

[Cow]

Now this, IMO should not be allowed because it is possible to use the ko's in the panel (that is how we do it--rx connectors). The outdoor panel is another issue and is below the buss with the entry. I never see those entries sealed and IMO that is a bad idea. Personally I would rather see a 2" nm Connector with all those wires in it then what I see there

So how would you write a code article to allow the first install posted, versus this one?

 

[kwired]

Right, the code should be amended to PROHIBIT panels on the outside of houses to begin with! That will take care of that problem and a lot of others. :rant:


-Hal

It shouldn't go that far, outdoor panels are the most practical solution sometimes for existing upgrades. And as I already mentioned I usually have run raceway(s) to junction boxes in attics, crawl spaces, etc to get conductors to the panel.

New construction - it is good design to make it so there is somewhere inside for the panel in dwellings or other places with habitable (use this fairly loosely here), dry non corrosive environments within.

 

[kwired]

Many small older houses that started out with a tiny (4) fuse panel have no room anywhere inside the house for a breaker panel. The only reasonable solution is an outdoor panel. There is nothing wrong with outdoor panels. There are tons of them here. I have to repair them no more often than indoor panels. There is an occasional rusted out bottom, but not very often. The worst part of outdoor panels is it always seems to rain when it comes time to install a new breaker.

You haven't began to see real rusted out bottoms if all you have is dwelling locations, I have no experience in salt water areas so those could be the exception, until you have been in hog barns that had an indoor panel installed in them. I can think of a few I have seen where the bottom isn't just rusty but is completely gone.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

So how would you write a code article to allow the first install posted, versus this one?

Trust me I tried however I was not able to do it.... A 2" nm connector might help but there is no way they are rated for that install but IMO it would be a better install.

 

[kwired]

So how would you write a code article to allow the first install posted, versus this one?

Problem is code is one size fits all, but there is exceptions and specific allowances here and there, you would have to use the exceptions/allowances approach somehow.

 

[Coppersmith]

I think there is an easy and code compliant way to install wiring into an outdoor panel on new construction. I've never had the opportunity to do this since all the outdoor panels I have installed have been on existing construction.**

All the branch wiring is run in the interior to a point 5" below the exterior panel. A slot or a series of holes is cut in the block or frame wall through which the wiring emerges outside. The cables turn up and enter KO's on the bottom of the panel using standard connectors. Between the slot in the wall and the panel a piece of exterior 1x2 furring is installed. The cables are stapled to the furring. A 3R metal cover which is the width and depth of the panel and 6" high is installed over the wiring to protect it from physical damage.

If the cover is able to be made weather-tight, NM could be used since it never enters exterior conduit and thus never a wet area. If this is not possible, all homeruns would have to be UF or other wet area method.

On the wall behind the panel (where the branch cables are running), that wall could be framed out with 2x4 instead of furring to allow space for running cables (assuming this is not a frame wall already). Alternately, the branch cables could be run down the cores of the block as is frequently done for outlets to homeruns in block houses.

Additional circuits added after construction is complete can be added using the normal way with conduit from the panel to the eave into the attic space.


** I did however use a similar method on a remodeled house that was totally rewired with a crawl space. All branch wiring to a new exterior panel was run from the bottom of the panel to the crawl space. The homeruns were all UF. A PT wooden cover was placed over the wiring below the panel. This passed inspection.

 

[tortuga]

For a smaller home or outbuilding its possible to do a compliant panel change, however it involves a "wide" style panel. On a remodel where opening up interior sheetrock is an option even easier.

So how would you write a code article to allow the first install posted, versus this one?

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]People try almost every code cycle, Panel 9 states they have investigated it "extensively". Here is a proposal from the graveyard for an exception 2 to allow what we often see:[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Public Input No. 3732-NFPA 70-2014[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](2) Exception: Cables with entirely nonmetallic sheaths shall be permitted to enter the back of a surface-mounted enclosure provided all of the following conditions are met:[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif](a) Each cable is fastened with 300 mm (12 in.), measured along the sheath, of the outer end of an approved bushing or connector.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif](b) The cable sheath is continuous through the bushing or connector.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif](c) The opening into the enclosure is sealed or plugged to prevent access to the enclosure

[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Installing cables into the back of a surface -mounted panelboard through a nonmetallic bushing or connector has been a common, noncomplying, practice for over 40 years. This practice is similar to the first "Exception" permitting a conduit to be installed at the top of a surface-mounted enclosure for the purpose of installing cables into the panelboard. Cabinets are not provided, generally, with the proper[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]access KO's for installing multiple cables into the back of the cabinet. If the panelboard were installed on the exterior of a building and individual cable connectors were used it would not only require multiple holes to allow for the back side of the individual connectors, it would require precise fitting of those cable connectors into the outer surface of the building to prevent energy loss and/or pest intrusion. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Committee Statement[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Resolution: This has been addressed repeatedly and consistently. For example, refer to the panel statement rejecting Proposal 9-16 in the 2008 cycle: “The installation procedure described in the proposal is one that CMP-9 voted to prohibit during previous code making cycles (1993, 1996, 1999, and 2005). Connectors or fittings as presented in the proposal are not designed for this purpose. A connector, bushing or other fitting without a length of raceway creates the possibility that the enclosure will no longer perform its intended containment function.” The substitution of ad-hoc sealing methods in this public input does not address the[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]concerns.[/FONT]

If more inspectors enforced 312.(5) Hals dream might come true.

 

[jap]

I've had to replace indoor loadcenters with 3r outdoor a time or 2.

I just ran conduits up and into the attic to a large J-box, run, individual conductors from the panel to the J-box, and , made the transition back to the NM in the attic.

Works out pretty simple,and, if you need any additional circuits in the future, just pull them in and rock and roll.

JAP>

 

[Flashbangman]

Greetings all, this question is mostly for inspectors and or AHJ's but all opinions are welcome,I frequently see PVC male adapters used as a chase nipple to get a ton of romex into the back of a 'trailer' style panel (loadcenter).
It has been discussed on here before that a residential 'loadcenter' falls under article 312.
And we all know later sections of the code may modify more general sections.

I am wondering why more inspectors don't enforce 312.5(C)? Its been in the code a while, first added in the '75 Edition as 373-5(c).
In '99 they added the Exception but it would never cover most of the installations I see.

Also you now have all in one panels that are installed outside a home with quick flash installation for a 2 1/2" PVC Nipple to back lower center of panel to inside the wall space of the home. I agree that all cables coming into a cabinet need to be supported, secured and proper connectors installed inside space or exposed per code however, short of creating a mess and a building leak at the panel installation it is not reasonable. If you are afraid of overheating on cables break up the cables and run them in two(2) TA's to the panel however always anchor cables with in 12 " of the TA's.
I would argue the point of 312.5(c) in this application but would agree with all the rest.

 

[Flashbangman]

1

CODE VIOLATION FROM 1963 years to current

 

[Flashbangman]

It's a violation plain and simple. What's wrong with making KO's for the cables and entering them the correct way with connectors?

penetrations into the building create leak points how would you seal the siding and plywood to keep it from leaking??

 

[Flashbangman]

1

Doesn't this romex tie wrapped become a bundling issue?

 

[infinity]

penetrations into the building create leak points how would you seal the siding and plywood to keep it from leaking??

That's not a good reason to install a violation. If you cannot seal it properly then I guess that you'll have to move the panel.