New 200 amp panel

[wwhitney]

All well and good, but the Exception clearly states "surface-mounted enclosure", which is defined in Article 100 as, "The case or housing of apparatus".

That's fine, but if 312.5(C) doesn't apply in the first place, there's no need to look at the exception.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

The real difference is that "above the enclosure" could be any place higher than the top of the enclosure. "Directly above" means within the dimensions of width and depth but higher.

OK, I agree with the above, but it doesn't say "the raceway extends only directly above the enclosure." So I don't see any requirement that the raceway remain directly above the enclosure.

Would you really say that a 6" vertical nipple, a T-condulet, and a 12" vertical nipple violates 312.5(C) Exception (b) if there is a horizontal conduit coming out of the T-condulet that extends past the edge of the panel?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jumper]

OK, I agree with the above, but it doesn't say "the raceway extends only directly above the enclosure." So I don't see any requirement that the raceway remain directly above the enclosure.

Would you really say that a 6" vertical nipple, a T-condulet, and a 12" vertical nipple violates 312.5(C) Exception (b) if there is a horizontal conduit coming out of the T-condulet that extends past the edge of the panel?

Cheers, Wayne

While the rules say violation, the simple fact i that the install is safe. Let the inspector approve it.

 

[macmikeman]

I love it when Romex Jockey man posts pictures of his work. On this one he mounted the right hand circuit breaker enclosure directly beneath a water pipe , which you can easily see in the first picture where the mess was. And,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, we all know no foreign piping all the way to the structural ceiling.....

Romex Jockey is very lucky that macmikeman is not the electrical inspector for his town.

 

[Craigv]

That's fine, but if 312.5(C) doesn't apply in the first place, there's no need to look at the exception.

Cheers, Wayne

If you're referring to what you wrote about cabinets and cut-out boxes, I addressed that in post #37. The exception states "enclosures". So the lack of a door does not disqualify.

 

[Craigv]

OK, I agree with the above, but it doesn't say "the raceway extends only directly above the enclosure." So I don't see any requirement that the raceway remain directly above the enclosure.

Would you really say that a 6" vertical nipple, a T-condulet, and a 12" vertical nipple violates 312.5(C) Exception (b) if there is a horizontal conduit coming out of the T-condulet that extends past the edge of the panel?

Cheers, Wayne

"only directly". The Code doesn't use redundant adverbs, and "directly" is not subject to gradation.

Yes, I really say that a conduit with branches does not meet either the intent or the wording of 312.5(C) exception. If such a construct is used, then pull individual conductors. The article is clear: where cable is used, secure each cable to the enclosure. The exception to the article is clear: raceway extends directly above enclosure.

 

[Adamjamma]

So, Craig, if it had 18 inch nipples instead of 12 inch nipples, would that qualify? as far as above the trough?
As far as I can see, from reading the 2011 codes last night, that seems to be the only sticking point.. if it was dropped enough to allow 18 inch or longer nipples above the trough, it would then be ok... unless I missed something else in my look?

 

[kwired]

Perhaps what is needed is to request that such a nice job like that is acceptable in future code, instead of just the one over the raceways... get the exception added with picture to show how much neater and nicer an install it is... since there are questions about it.

I think that it is worth a try, at least..

Just because something looks nice doesn't mean it is safe or code compliant, or that it should be compliant.

A really nice looking house can still collapse if inadequate structural members were used to build it.

 

[wwhitney]

Yes, I really say that a conduit with branches does not meet either the intent or the wording of 312.5(C) exception.

OK, we can agree to disagree on the meaning of the word "directly."

The article is clear: where cable is used, secure each cable to the enclosure.

As to my other point about panelboards without doors, 312.5(C) itself does not use the word "enclosure", it uses the phrase "cabinet, cutout box, or meter socket enclosure." So 312.5(C) doesn't apply to a panelboard without a door. The fact that the exception uses the word "enclosure" doesn't extend the scope of 312.5(C) itself.

So in the case of a panelboard without a door, other articles will apply.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[peter d]

I love it when Romex Jockey man posts pictures of his work. On this one he mounted the right hand circuit breaker enclosure directly beneath a water pipe , which you can easily see in the first picture where the mess was. And,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, we all know no foreign piping all the way to the structural ceiling.....

Romex Jockey is very lucky that macmikeman is not the electrical inspector for his town.

Good catch. :thumbsup:

I would violate it based on the fact that it's a disgusting abomination. Romex in a TA then jammed with duct seal? Seriously, how hard would it have been to drill a handful of holes for real romex connectors and make it look much better?

 

[Craigv]

OK, we can agree to disagree on the meaning of the word "directly."


As to my other point about panelboards without doors, 312.5(C) itself does not use the word "enclosure", it uses the phrase "cabinet, cutout box, or meter socket enclosure." So 312.5(C) doesn't apply to a panelboard without a door. The fact that the exception uses the word "enclosure" doesn't extend the scope of 312.5(C) itself.

So in the case of a panelboard without a door, other articles will apply.

Cheers, Wayne

Article 312.5(C) absolutely uses "enclosure", you even wrote it in the same sentence you claim it wasn't used. And the definition of "cabinet" does not require it to have a door, only that a door "can be hung". Most any panel enclosure can have a trim with a door or without. And cutout boxes may have either a door or a cover.

You never stated what your definition of "directly" is. If it implies leeway to either side, what's the outer limit of that leeway? A foot? Ten feet? An inch? Such ambiguity isn't part of this word. A horizontal wireway extending several feet to each side definitely does not "extend directly above" the enclosure. With no limit to "directly", why not just run Romex into a trough extending all the way around the room, and just spit out risers anywhere a branch circuit needs to go?

I give you credit for trying to spin this your way, but some level of realistic reasonability needs to be applied.

 

[wwhitney]

Article 312.5(C) absolutely uses "enclosure", you even wrote it in the same sentence you claim it wasn't used.

Yeah, that's restricted to meter socket enclosures, so it doesn't not apply to the discussion at hand.

And the definition of "cabinet" does not require it to have a door, only that a door "can be hung". Most any panel enclosure can have a trim with a door or without.

Well, it says "is provided with a frame, mat, or trim" from which a door can be hung. So if you take the door off a trim with door, it is still a cabinet. But if you install a trim without provisions for a door, it is no longer a cabinet.

And cutout boxes may have either a door or a cover.

Right, a swinging door or a swinging cover.

You never stated what your definition of "directly" is.

I take it to mean that the raceway is attached to the top of the cabinet. I.e. as the raceway exits the cabinet, it has to exit the top. It can't exit the side and then rise up above the cabinet. I don't take it to mean that the raceway must remain exclusively above the cabinet, other language would be needed to require that, in my opinion.

Edit: in other words, "directly" means "go there first", it doesn't mean "don't go anywhere else afterwards."

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

Good catch. :thumbsup:

Looks to me like the water pipe visible in the first picture may be above a space between two of the panels in the second picture, it's not clear. Can you see the water pipe in the second picture? Edit: aren't the joists the water pipe is within "the structural ceiling"?

I would violate it based on the fact that it's a disgusting abomination. Romex in a TA then jammed with duct seal?

Without commenting on the overall merits of the installation, I note that 312.5(C) Exception (d) requires the duct seal or equivalent.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[peter d]

Without commenting on the overall merits of the installation, I note that 312.5(C) Exception (d) requires the duct seal or equivalent.

No doubt it does. But code compliant doesn't always equate to a neat installation, as I think that picture illustrates.

 

[macmikeman]

Looks to me like the water pipe visible in the first picture may be above a space between two of the panels in the second picture, it's not clear. Can you see the water pipe in the second picture? Edit: aren't the joists the water pipe is within "the structural ceiling"?


Without commenting on the overall merits of the installation, I note that 312.5(C) Exception (d) requires the duct seal or equivalent.

Cheers, Wayne

It's above. I wouldn't have said it if it was between the two. And according to your idea about within the ceiling , yeah, I bet the water once leaking would stop it's free fall at the height of the non existant barrier and the panel would stay dry. NoT. Red tag.

 

[wwhitney]

It's above. I wouldn't have said it if it was between the two.

OK, you made me break out the ruler. It's close, but I agree it is over the rightmost panel.

And according to your idea about within the ceiling , yeah, I bet the water once leaking would stop it's free fall at the height of the non existant barrier and the panel would stay dry. NoT. Red tag.

So how do you define the plane of the structural ceiling when the joists are open? In any event, if a small square of drywall was put on the joists where water line passes over the panel, no more red tag?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Craigv]

Yeah, that's restricted to meter socket enclosures, so it doesn't not apply to the discussion at hand.


Well, it says "is provided with a frame, mat, or trim" from which a door can be hung. So if you take the door off a trim with door, it is still a cabinet. But if you install a trim without provisions for a door, it is no longer a cabinet.


Right, a swinging door or a swinging cover.


I take it to mean that the raceway is attached to the top of the cabinet. I.e. as the raceway exits the cabinet, it has to exit the top. It can't exit the side and then rise up above the cabinet. I don't take it to mean that the raceway must remain exclusively above the cabinet, other language would be needed to require that, in my opinion.

Edit: in other words, "directly" means "go there first", it doesn't mean "don't go anywhere else afterwards."

Cheers, Wayne

The exception clearly states "enclosure", and an example enclosure is stated in the article. The example is not required, the exception states to what it applies....enclosures. The definition of a cabinet isn't relevant. The exception describes how to permit multiple cables exiting an enclosure without individually securing them to the exit point.

The exception states "extends directly above" Are we now going to dissect what the phrase means? It clearly doesn't apply only to the point of exit.

 

[wwhitney]

The exception clearly states "enclosure", and an example enclosure is stated in the article. The example is not required, the exception states to what it applies....enclosures. The definition of a cabinet isn't relevant.

If it's not a "cabinet, cutout box, or meter enclosure," 312.5(C) doesn't apply, so the wording of the exception is immaterial.

Say I had a vehicle visibility rule that said "All station wagons, SUVs, and pickup trucks must be painted orange. Exception: Vehicles with daylight running lights." The fact that the word "vehicles" was used in the exception doesn't mean that the basic rule applies to all vehicles. It was just a convenient way to avoid repeating the phrase "station wagons, SUVs, and pickup trucks."

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Craigv]

If it's not a "cabinet, cutout box, or meter enclosure," 312.5(C) doesn't apply, so the wording of the exception is immaterial.

Say I had a vehicle visibility rule that said "All station wagons, SUVs, and pickup trucks must be painted orange. Exception: Vehicles with daylight running lights." The fact that the word "vehicles" was used in the exception doesn't mean that the basic rule applies to all vehicles. It was just a convenient way to avoid repeating the phrase "station wagons, SUVs, and pickup trucks."

Cheers, Wayne

I'm saying "enclosure" in the exception applies to everything described in the article, because the exception wording specifically states, "enclosures within the scope of this article", and that the loadcenters in the picture example apply.

You claim an enclosure with no door is not a cabinet, and if there was no door on the loadcenters in the picture, the rule and exception would not be applicable. This is fundamentally wrong. Article 100 states that an enclosure capable of having a trim for which "doors are or can be hung" is a cabinet. The enclosure doesn't have to have a door actually installed to be a cabinet...only the designed capability of having one installed. The pictured example that started this mess qualifies for 312.5(C) scrutiny.

An "enclosure" by article 100 definition, as you are describing above, encompasses all of the 312.5(C) boxes....cabinets, cutout boxes, and meter enclosures. So the 312.5(C) exception applies to everything described in the article proper. The exception and the rule applies to a loadcenter without a door installed because a door trim *can*, but doesn't necessarily have to be installed.

 

[wwhitney]

I'm saying "enclosure" in the exception applies to everything described in the article, because the exception wording specifically states, "enclosures within the scope of this article", and that the loadcenters in the picture example apply.

Yes, I agree with all of the above.

You claim an enclosure with no door is not a cabinet, and if there was no door on the loadcenters in the picture, the rule and exception would not be applicable.

I don't believe I have made that claim. All I ever intended to say was that if a load center's trim has no provision for attaching a door, its enclosure is not a cabinet, and so Article 312 does not apply. I don't think it matters if there is another trim available for the enclosure that would accept a door; if the installed trim has no provision for accepting a door, it's not a cabinet.

Edit: I see that up until post #52, we both were using the phrase "panelboard without a door" which was somewhat ambiguous. In post #52, I clarified that per the definition, what matters is the provision for having a door, not whether the door is actually there.

Cheers, Wayne