Non-ctl in a ctl load center

mark32

mark32

Senior Member
Location
Currently in NJ
So, an acquaintance had a small gen ATS installed years ago by someone he claims was an electrician. I guess the permit was still open, so the town contacted him and set up a date for an inspector to come and look things over. Among other things, he pointed out that he had two or more grounded conductors under the same individual terminal in the neutral bar within this ATS. He was also red tagged for having a number of romex homeruns entering this enclosure without it's outer jacket in place. The original installer had passed away, so he's bending my ear for some help. At first, I couldn't understand why there were so many neutrals doubled up on the neutral bar. And then I was taken back a bit when I saw that the entire panel was all twins. I asked him to send me the specs on the panel. It turns out, it's only a 12/12 panel, which then made sense as to why there wasn't a large enough neutral bar from the factory to accommodate all of the circuits he jammed into this little panel. Years ago, I came to the conclusion that one is not allowed to install a non-ctl twin in a panel installed after 1968, which is a date I had taken from the packaging on a Square D non-ctl twin breaker. So, did this inspector overlook this, or is it okay to stick a non-ctl twin in a current ctl assembly?
 
The permit was for installing the ATS. Sounds like they are picking on some items that were likely present before the ATS was installed, where does the inspecting stop in such a case? Around here they typically wouldn't bother making you change those sort of things. If any new conductors or anything that needed moved wasn't up to code they will want it done right, but most existing things need to be a fairly obvious hazard to cause a change order for them.

This is getting close to the point of nothing can be done other than replace the load center with one with more spaces, or at least capable of accepting CTL tandems. Although that maybe isn't bad thing anyway. Doubled up neutrals has some potential issues but mostly for when someone is working on things while energized and isn't otherwise going to be something likely to burn the place down. I'm all for straightening out anything that isn't going to take much of an effort though should it be something already existing.
 
mark32 said:
Years ago, I came to the conclusion that one is not allowed to install a non-ctl twin in a panel installed after 1968, which is a date I had taken from the packaging on a Square D non-ctl twin breaker.
Click to expand...
It has always been up to the installer to make sure they did not install too many circuits.
 
Thanks for stopping by Jim and Kwired! All that I discussed is part of the new installation. I'm including a pic of how it looked upon inspection. Once more, if I see a loadcenter with a 12/12 designation, that tells me the manufacturer does not want more than 12 circuits in their panel, thus, you will see the buss is not notched for a ctl twin. At this point, I am not sure if you (Jim or Kwired) agree or disagree with that thinking.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1555.jpg
    IMG_1555.jpg
    640.5 KB · Views: 37
Last edited:
Are there AFCI requirement for those branch circuits? Can you find any twin AFCI's even if they were allowed in that panel? Yes, a 12/12 panel is limited to 12 circuits and lack of neutral spaces is one reason.

That panel should be ripped out and done over. Multiple problems just from that one picture.
 
Could be. New panels still have a nomenclature like 20/40, 40/80, etc. So they still limit the number of circuits, but it seems they allow a twin in every slot now since the 42 circuit limit went away.
 
Install a sub-panel.
What about installing a box or two next to the panel, terminate some of the NM cables in it and put a neutral bar in the box and run a single large neutral to the panel. I've never done that, is it allowd?
Grounds are also problem. I guess the hack NM connector was due to not enougth knock-outs, but it looks like there is room at the bottom of the panel to punch some holes.
Looks like a hack job.
 
Looks like a MLO panel, that is a problem with 24 disconnects!
What is with the wire nut next to the left main lug? Are there wires where the bus bars are?
Looks like time for an upgrade.
 
AC\DC said:
I thoug the CTL were for an old rule about limited number of breakers in a panel, and once they got rid of that you can use the twins or quads with out the rejection clips
Click to expand...
The manufacturer's instructions still specify the maximum number of circuits. For example, my house panel is a SquareD 30/40 meaning only 10 spaces can have twins. The one in the garage is a 16/32 so all of the spaces can have twins.
 
Question for the OP........ Isnt the panel you posted the generator panel which is part of the transfer switch? If it is, does the generator have enough capacity for the loads connected?

If it is the panel that is part of the transfer switch non CTL breakers could create a UL listing issue, as the switch and panel mau only have been listed to 12 circuits I would add a sub panel with full size breakers for the circuits that dont fit in this panel.


Howard
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The manufacturer's instructions still specify the maximum number of circuits. For example, my house panel is a SquareD 30/40 meaning only 10 spaces can have twins. The one in the garage is a 16/32 so all of the spaces can have twins.
Click to expand...
So what’s the point of the non ctl twin breaker then cause all the 20/40 I see still have the notches for the ctl.
 
AC\DC said:
So what’s the point of the non ctl twin breaker then cause all the 20/40 I see still have the notches for the ctl.
Click to expand...
They originally existed for use in load centers manufactured prior to CTL coming into effect in the 60s.
There is no doubt they have regularly been used as 'cheaters'.

A lot of electricians apparently do not read manufacturer's instructions which has led to some NEC code articles. Also there are the instructions buried in Listing standards that are only learned through failed inspections.
 
Last edited:
kwired said:
The permit was for installing the ATS. Sounds like they are picking on some items that were likely present before the ATS was installed, where does the inspecting stop in such a case? Around here they typically wouldn't bother making you change those sort of things.
Click to expand...

The local town inspector here is pretty easy going, except for a few things and improperly terminated romex shoved thru a PVC nipple or a non-sealed k/o or is one of those existing things he considers a imminent fire danger needing correction, citing a past in wall fire in a nearby town caused by it and it was never allowed by code in the past. Each cable must be secured to the panel with a listed cable clamp.
I have never had them say a word about CTL or Non-CTL.
 
pipe_bender said:
The local town inspector here is pretty easy going, except for a few things and improperly terminated romex shoved thru a PVC nipple or a non-sealed k/o or is one of those existing things he considers a imminent fire danger needing correction, citing a past in wall fire in a nearby town caused by it and it was never allowed by code in the past. Each cable must be secured to the panel with a listed cable clamp.
I have never had them say a word about CTL or Non-CTL.
Click to expand...
Same here, but to be honest, I just naïvely thought since limit on breakers was gone that I could slap those in if I legally can’t even if the inspector allows that I could get sued so now I gotta stop doing that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top