Violation or Not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Insn't the guts of a "loadcenter" the actual panelboard and the can is a cabinet? On larger panelboards you usually order a panelboard, main breaker (if needed), feed thru lugs (if needed), and the size and type of cabinet needed as separate items (may or may not be factory assembled but are ordered as separate items).

I once replaced the interior of an old Frank Adams fused switch panel with a QO load center by installing the QO inside the old cabinet. I was lucky the opening on the cover for the fuse panel was exactly the same size as the QO cabinet. Spaced the QO cabinet so that it was flush with this opening and put the QO cover on and removed the FA cover. The thing looked like it was designed for the purpose. It was a whole lot easier than trying to figure out how to replace the whole thing that was mounted flush in a block wall.
 
I would say it's a violation because the new panel is not UL listed to be installed in such a manner. Hard to argue with that
 
hardworkingstiff said:
OK, I'm reading 110.26 to try to see what you are talking about and here is what I see.

110.26(A)(1) they still have the 3' so not a violation.
110.26(A)(2) they still have the 30" so not a violation.
110.26(A)(3) the still have the height so not a violation.
110.26(B) if it met this requirement, it still does.
Actually, installing a panel inside the panel just does not violate anything that I see in 110.26.

Now, I'm not saying this install is code compliant (and I'm not saying it isn't). I'm just saying I don't see where it violates 110.26.

I also would like to see a picture. I don't know how they can cover the wiring inside the old enclosure. I imagine from the OP that one must open the old cover to access the new panel and breakers. What I don't know is if there is a breaker cover on the new panel cover and how much space is between the opening on the old cover and the sides of the new panel cover. Other than exposed wiring in that space I don't see this as a hazard (assuming bonding of the old can was performed and the nipple is properly installed).

Just because it's not a hazard doesn't mean it's code compliant, but 110.26 is not violated as best as I can tell.
Click to expand...




Look,,,,,ther's no section about mounting one panel inside another. 110.26 does not spell that out for you. But look at 110.18,,,,,,,,now answer this about the second and larger overlapping panel, IS IT OR IS IT NOT IN THE WORKING SPACE ?? Look where the working space starts for an operating panel. Now place your larger panel in the picture, in front of the smaller panel, What space is that occupying? space that is covered by 110.26
 
mcclary's electrical said:
Look,,,,,ther's no section about mounting one panel inside another. 110.26 does not spell that out for you. But look at 110.18,,,,,,,,now answer this about the second and larger overlapping panel, IS IT OR IS IT NOT IN THE WORKING SPACE ?? Look where the working space starts for an operating panel. Now place your larger panel in the picture, in front of the smaller panel, What space is that occupying? space that is covered by 110.26
Click to expand...


Using that argument it is also against the code to place a panel in a wall cavity.

I will not even guess at the OPs question without a picture.
 
iwire said:
Using that argument it is also against the code to place a panel in a wall cavity.

I will not even guess at the OPs question without a picture.
Click to expand...

I don't undersand this analogy. The working space starts at the face of the panel, a wall cavity is not in that space, an overlapping larger panel cover, placed over the front of the smaller panel, is in that space, a wall cavity is not. IMO
 
There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. NEC 90.1 states that the purpose of this code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from the hazards arising from the use of electricity. Anyone who ever replaced a panel with conduit and wire entering from both the top and bottom, and possibly from the side as well, knows that this is a practical and safe solution.
 
We've done similar installations here in NY, specifically in schools. The original backboxes are HUGE and had asbestos barriers that had to be abated. Adding to the mess is that 500MCM risers pass through these boxes into other boxes in other classrooms. The solution approved by our AHJ was to install new panels within the huge backboxes, tap the 500MCM's and enter the new panel through a chase nipple. Being that the outer doors are still in service as well as locked, there's nothing that is not compliant.
 
Finally, here are the pics I promised.











 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top