Panel Relocation

[dwellselectric]

Question was on a job and the HO is very sick and can't walk to well so she had a EC come over and move the main panel from the basement to her bedroom so she didn't have to worry about going down stairs and falling. Now she wanted to add a plug under the new panel in her bedroom for a tv. So went to take the panel cover off and there was not any neutrals in the panel. They just spliced the hots from the old panel and brought them to the new one and left the neutrals in the old panel along with the feeders. Now isn't this a violation of Art. 210.4 (a) 2008 code? Unless that is totally legal I just cant see how it can be:-?

 

[petersonra]

Question was on a job and the HO is very sick and can't walk to well so she had a EC come over and move the main panel from the basement to her bedroom so she didn't have to worry about going down stairs and falling. Now she wanted to add a plug under the new panel in her bedroom for a tv. So went to take the panel cover off and there was not any neutrals in the panel. They just spliced the hots from the old panel and brought them to the new one and left the neutrals in the old panel along with the feeders. Now isn't this a violation of Art. 210.4 (a) 2008 code? Unless that is totally legal I just cant see how it can be:-?

I am having trouble understanding just what was done.

 

[dwellselectric]

Well let me try to describe it differently. What they did was the old panel in the basement they left all the conductors in the panel. They installed a new panel in the bedroom. Spliced all the hots from the old panel and brought them up to the new panel and installed the breakers in the new panel. The neutrals where left in the old panel. As for the main feed they spliced the two hots in the old panel and brought them up to the new panel. So the neutrals where left in the old panel. And in the new panel its just breakers no neutral. Does that make any sense? Its a interesting setup to say the least

 

[rexowner]

408.41 Grounded Conductor Terminations.
Each grounded conductor shall terminate within
the panelboard in an individual terminal....

I never would have thought of the type of set up
described, so I have usually only thought of 408.41
wrt the fact that each neutral has to have its own terminal
unless the exception applies, but now that you make
me think about it it says that the neutral has to terminate
"within the panelboard".

 

[dwellselectric]

Thank you Rex I knew that couldn't be legal I just wanted to be sure :smile:

 

[rexowner]

You're welcome, D.

It's amazing what one sees on some installations,
and fortunate someone has thought to get it ruled
out by the NEC.

 

[haskindm]

If they spliced the service entrance conductors and ran that to the new location, the service disconnect is now probably not "nearest the point of entrance" of the service conductors. You essentially have unfused service entrance conductors running from the old panel to the new panel which violates 230.70(A). 300.3(B) states that the conductors of a circuit must be run together. Having the ungrounded conductors originating in one location and the grounded conductors originating in another violates this section. Was this work inspected? It appears that you have landed in the middle of a nightmare!

 

[dnem]

"Well let me try to describe it differently. What they did was the old panel in the basement they left all the conductors in the panel. They installed a new panel in the bedroom. Spliced all the hots from the old panel and brought them up to the new panel and installed the breakers in the new panel. The neutrals where left in the old panel. As for the main feed they spliced the two hots in the old panel and brought them up to the new panel. So the neutrals where left in the old panel. And in the new panel its just breakers no neutral. Does that make any sense? Its a interesting setup to say the least"

Yes it makes sense.

haskindm gave you the 2 main violations.

And whatever wiring method they're using when they "brought them up" but "left" the neutral in the old panel, they violated 300.3(B).

When you do the rework, the service entrance conductors need to hit the main OCPD "nearest the point of entrance" 230.70(A)(1).

David

 

[haskindm]

David,
Do we agree??
I must be having a good day!
Take care...

 

[dnem]

:grin: ...

 

[LarryFine]

Just to add my opinion:

Electrically, as long as the new feeder and the returning circuit conductors share the same raceway, there will be no detrimental effects. This is almost identcial to the typical 6-, 8-, or 10-circuit generator transfer panel, where the neutrals stay landed in the main box.

I'm not suggesting that this makes it legal, but whatever makes the above-mentioned T/S panel legal might apply to this installation, too. The requirement that the neutrals always accompany the hots doesn't apply to, for example, 2-wire switch loops, nor does it need to.

P.S. I hope they did run a neutral for any future circuits, as well as an EGC.

 

[dnem]

Just to add my opinion:

Electrically, as long as the new feeder and the returning circuit conductors share the same raceway, there will be no detrimental effects. This is almost identcial to the typical 6-, 8-, or 10-circuit generator transfer panel, where the neutrals stay landed in the main box.

I'm not suggesting that this makes it legal, but whatever makes the above-mentioned T/S panel legal might apply to this installation, too. The requirement that the neutrals always accompany the hots doesn't apply to, for example, 2-wire switch loops, nor does it need to.

P.S. I hope they did run a neutral for any future circuits, as well as an EGC.

"as long as the new feeder and the returning circuit conductors share the same raceway"
Agreed

"I'm not suggesting that this makes it legal"
I would claim it to be legal/code compliant

"requirement that the neutrals always accompany the hots"
That's not a requirement

"for example, 2-wire switch loops"
That's a good example to show that the code does not require the neutral to always accompany the hot. . Both 300.3(B) + 300.20(A) have language that says, "where used". . The switch leg doesn't use the neutral and the return leg provides the counterbalance for the magnetic field so the neutral isn't needed for counterbalance of magnetic field heating.

Also 250.6(A) adds direction about arrangement to prevent objectionable current that applies directly to questions about grounding but the concept itself makes sense for inductive heating issues.

David