Is this legal? Only hots in a pipe? Only neutrals in a pipe?

[Danny89]

Hey guys I saw this online and never seen it before...is it to code standards to run only ungrounded conductors in a nipple from panelboard to trough? And to run only grounded conductors in a separate nipple from panelboard to trough? Look at the photo tell me what you think and what nec articles state that this will pass code.

Thanks in advance.


Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[infinity]

That is not code compliant.

 

[roger]

Start with 300.20

Roger

 

[winnie]

Not code compliant unless the nipples are non-ferrous and are passing through panels that are designed to prevent inductive effects.

-Jon

 

[electricman2]

But you have to agree that it looks good

 

[roger]

But you have to agree that it looks good

Yeah and it's a shame.

Roger

 

[electrofelon]

Strange to see such nice workmanship, yet such a fundamental code violation.

 

[d0nut]

It is a free enclosure heater upgrade. It is a feature, not a bug.

 

[hillbilly1]

They must be prepping for future arc fault installations with those long neutrals! LOL!

 

[winnie]

Strange to see such nice workmanship, yet such a fundamental code violation.

This might be a Canadian installation. I believe that they have a threshold for requiring the phases/neutral to run through the same hole. Also if the phases are relatively balanced, then the fact that the neutral is not shared with the phases will be of little actual consequence.

Also good workmanship with a code violation strikes me as the sort of stuff that I would do in 'DIY' mode prior to actually reading through the codebook

-Jon

 

[LarryFine]

Also if the phases are relatively balanced, then the fact that the neutral is not shared with the phases will be of little actual consequence.

It appears that there are the same number of line and grounded conductors (21/side), meaning no MWBCs.

 

[winnie]

It appears that there are the same number of line and grounded conductors (21/side), meaning no MWBCs.

Agreed. But there would still be balancing effects. If you have 3 phase conductors and they all carry the same current, then the net current is balanced out. Same for the 3 associated neutral conductors.

-Jon

 

[don_resqcapt19]

This might be a Canadian installation. I believe that they have a threshold for requiring the phases/neutral to run through the same hole. Also if the phases are relatively balanced, then the fact that the neutral is not shared with the phases will be of little actual consequence.

Also good workmanship with a code violation strikes me as the sort of stuff that I would do in 'DIY' mode prior to actually reading through the codebook

-Jon

Yes, their equivalent to 300.20 does not apply unless the current exceeds 200 amps.

 

[Buck Parrish]

I'm curious as to what type of breakers those are.

 

[GoldDigger]

Is the "main" RCD or programmable or both?

 

[ptonsparky]

What is in the enclosure to the right?

 

[goldstar]

Aside from probably being Canadian, aren't you required to identify which neutrals belong to their respective phase conductors (either by tape or cable tie)?

 

[ptonsparky]

I thought that was only for MWBC.

 

[paulengr]

Aside from probably being Canadian, aren't you required to identify which neutrals belong to their respective phase conductors (either by tape or cable tie)?

That is a preference. Some crews are very meticulous about identifying everything in every pull or pulling and terminating one circuit at a time. But labels get knocked off and tape gets confused or knocked off. Others just pull everything first and then sort it all out by ringing or pulling when they terminate. It sounds easier to label first but at least in industrial panels I find the labels get knocked off or damaged to the point you can’t read them so easy it’s usually easier just to save all the time labeling it ahead of time and just ring everything out after it’s pulled. The exception is on retrofits where tracing down circuits is so tedious labels are much faster. Ringing also seems to reduce mistakes.

As to marking you have to make sure it is wired correctly. Code specifies that you have to identify neutrals from different systems. For instance if you have 277 V lighting and 120 V receptacles in the same conduit the 277 neutral should be say white with a blue stripe. But that rule doesn’t apply to circuits that are part of the same system. You can’t common (share) neutrals between breakers (ampacity issue) and you have to keep AFCI/GFCI load neutrals and hots together but since none of these are different systems they don’t have to be identified.

 

[infinity]

Aside from probably being Canadian, aren't you required to identify which neutrals belong to their respective phase conductors (either by tape or cable tie)?

That is correct the neutrals need to be identified when they're in an enclosure. The photo quality is fairly poor so it is possible that they are individually numbered.

200.4 Neutral Conductors. Neutral conductors shall be installed in accordance with 200.4(A) and (B).
(A) Installation. Neutral conductors shall not be used for more than one branch circuit, for more than one multiwire branch circuit, or for more than one set of ungrounded feeder conductors unless specifically permitted elsewhere in this Code.
(B) Multiple Circuits. Where more than one neutral conductor associated with different circuits is in an enclosure, grounded circuit conductors of each circuit shall be identified or grouped to correspond with the ungrounded circuit conductor(s) by wire markers, cable ties, or similar means in at least one location within the enclosure.