Romex in conduit to panel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Check my math because i'm using pencil, but with 2" pvc pipe, (3.291 sq") and an area.248 sq" per 12/2, not including the sub feeder cables and the 10/2 and other cables , 13 would be the max fill.
 
I think note 2 to table1 chapter 9 exempts these stubs from fill restrictions (and derating if less than 2'). If they aren't surface mounted you can't do it at all (according to the first part of the exception of 312.5(C)). I'm reading out of the '05 code here in Va so it may have changed. I'm dealing with this exact situation on a job right now which is why I keep pushing this.
 
Last edited:
Kentucky is also under the 05 code. 312.5(C) exception describes the surface-mounted condition where cables are not required to be secured to the cabinet as long as all of the subsection to this exception is followed.

Subsection (g) Where installed as conduit or tubing, the allowable cable fill does not exceed that permitted for complete conduit or tubing systems by Table 1 of Chapter 9 of this code and all applicable notes thereto.

The key is applicable notes. If one applies note 2 to Table 1 of Chapter 9 you would end up with a paradox.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
As the picture stands, this is not a violation as the panels are surface mounted.
.
Click to expand...
Pierre, Look at the panels closely. There is a gap between the wall and back box and no mounting screws through the back, making this a CSI break through. The panels are not surface mounted, they are side mounted. Hoosgottaredsticker.

Rick
 
sb1280 said:
And the wall will be drywalled.
Click to expand...

This installation would not comply with 312.5(C) at all. In Western Kentucky this would never fly.

Have you ever see a fire that started in the panel with these stove pipes installed (as we call them in KY...... please, no comments on the NCAA) that are not sealed or plugged. Flames shoot out the top like a blow torch.
 
fisherelectric said:
312.5(C)(g) says "where installed as conduit or tubing, the allowable cable fill does not exceed that permitted for complete conduit or tubing systems by Table 1 Chapter 9 of this and all applicable notes thereto".

Table 1 Chapter 9 Note (2): Table 1 applies only to complete conduit or tubing systems and is not intended to apply to sections of conduit or tubing used to protect exposed wiring from physical damage."
I would argue that an 18" to 24" "nipple" or "sleeve" does not count as a conduit system and is therefore excluded from applying the conduit fill rules of Table 1 Chapter 9.
Not that I would suggest cramming them full, but I believe them exempted on purpose by the wording of 312.5(C)(g). If they were connected to a trough or box then they would not be exempted because they may be interpreted as "complete systems".
Click to expand...

I think from what I read this thinking is right on.

The raceway can't be more than 10' but if within those 10' the raceway is terminated making it a complete conduit than (g) forces you to comply with fill requirements.

fisherelectric, Thanks for the note from chp 9. It sheds a little light and I am convinced... If it was cut and dry that if that exception is used you had to consider fill than there would be absolutely no reason for the "run up language" that states IF it is used as a conduit or tubing...
 
Mvillines said:
This installation would not comply with 312.5(C) at all. In Western Kentucky this would never fly.

Have you ever see a fire that started in the panel with these stove pipes installed (as we call them in KY...... please, no comments on the NCAA) that are not sealed or plugged. Flames shoot out the top like a blow torch.
Click to expand...

I agree several changes have to be made to comply... sealing the raceway is required to prevent the blow torching :smile:

I also think derating is required based on there being more than 24"

Man I love this site.
 
One of the things I have learned to do as an inspector is not to assume what is going to happen. I would and do ask a lot of questions. If what I see in the picture is what I would see during the inspection, here is what my determination would be.

1. As per the [exception], the panels are mounted on the surface, as there is no surface that they are flush with.

2. [(a)] It is difficult to see, but lets say the cables are secured within 12 inches of the PVC.

3. [(b)] The raceways do extend directly over the enclosures. I am not sure if there may be a structural ceiling. It is possible that the grid to the drop ceiling could conceivibly be mounted to the framing member we see just above the panels.

4. [(c)] It is difficult to see if the fittings are installed, so again lets say they are.

5. [(d)] It is difficult to see if the raceways are sealed, so again lets say they are.

6. [(e)] The sheath appears to be installed at least a 1/4 inch into the enclosure.

7. [(f)] The raceways look to be suitably secured as per Article 352 (maybe the raceway to the right may be off a little).

8. [(g)] This sub section is a little tough to deal with. The exception says to follow Table 1, Chapter 9...then says to follow all applicable notes of the same. This is not a complete conduit system and note 2 states that Table 1 does not apply.
 
Pierre, you're a very trusting inspector! :smile:

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that you come back for final, and discover drywall on the wall and ceiling. What would you say when asked "Why the heck didn't you tell me these things when you did the rough inspection?!"
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
1. As per the [exception], the panels are mounted on the surface, as there is no surface that they are flush with.
Click to expand...

I disagree, those panels are recessed as shown in the picture even without the wall board. Can I see or access the exterior sides of the panel?

No.

Then it must be recessed.
 
iwire said:
Can I see or access the exterior sides of the panel?
Click to expand...

iWire,
Thanks, I was waiting for someone to counter that 'surface' observation.
I couldn't understand "why?" 'surface' got started.

It is defined by " no access to exterior sides of the panel".

Now, there is a whole new perspective on the other code requirements.
We still need more info, which may not be available until after 'finish' occurs.
I am inclined to assume that the walls will be covered, and ceiling will be covered,
until notified otherwise, although I don't know what documentation would suffice.

In our area, the local town AHJ
prefers the plastic hangers/spacer trees.
Then in the city-wide area, 'risers' like the OP presents are allowed,
and the conduit ends must be accessible and bushed.

I need to look for a code reference on how many cables
can go through a 5/8" hole.
I really don't think there is any UL listing
for this after-market modification to a plate/stud. :smile:
 
Last edited:
Here is a replay from a member of the CMP regarding 312.5(C). As you can see he is also from Kentucky (stovepipe).


I had always thought this was pretty clear. If the stovepipe is no more than 24" then the 60% rule applies from Chapter 9 Table 1 applies. If it is over 24", then you have to comply with the normal 40% fill rules.

Derating factors apply also when you get over 24".

Remember that tables apply as referenced from the Chapters. Since 312.5 specifically points you to use Chapter 9 Table 1, the statement in Note 2 saying only full conduit systems is nullified.
 
iwire said:
Honestly as an inspector I think Pierre could call that surface if he wanted to I just don't see it that way.:smile:
Click to expand...
The panels were put in after the stud wall was built making them recessed no matter what the reveal is. If the walls were put in after, Pierre would have a point.

Rick
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
1. As per the [exception], the panels are mounted on the surface, as there is no surface that they are flush with.
.
Click to expand...
Pierre i have to disagree with you on this for discussion purposes. The panels have the required finished reveal already set. With your reasoning i could set a panel with a 1" reveal and use 1/2" finish board and call it surface mounted.

Rick
 
Mvillines said:
Here is a replay from a member of the CMP regarding 312.5(C). As you can see he is also from Kentucky (stovepipe).


I had always thought this was pretty clear. If the stovepipe is no more than 24" then the 60% rule applies from Chapter 9 Table 1 applies. If it is over 24", then you have to comply with the normal 40% fill rules.

Derating factors apply also when you get over 24".

Remember that tables apply as referenced from the Chapters. Since 312.5 specifically points you to use Chapter 9 Table 1, the statement in Note 2 saying only full conduit systems is nullified.
Click to expand...

I really hate this language used in (g).

I would like to hear opinions of the language in the begining "Where installed as conduit or tubing..." It seems to qualify the raceway but what exactly does it mean?
 
Mvillines said:
Here is a replay from a member of the CMP regarding 312.5(C). As you can see he is also from Kentucky (stovepipe).


I had always thought this was pretty clear. If the stovepipe is no more than 24" then the 60% rule applies from Chapter 9 Table 1 applies. If it is over 24", then you have to comply with the normal 40% fill rules.

Derating factors apply also when you get over 24".

Remember that tables apply as referenced from the Chapters. Since 312.5 specifically points you to use Chapter 9 Table 1, the statement in Note 2 saying only full conduit systems is nullified.
Click to expand...

In my code book (g) says"....for complete conduit and tubing systems by Table 1 Chapter 9 of this Code and all applicable notes thereto." How does that render Note 2 "nullified"? It specifically says to apply the notes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top