Wires in front of Service Entrance wires

[Jon Errickson]

Besides looking non-professional, is there anything wrong from a code or safety standpoint with the orange and neutral conductors on the right hand side (looking at the pic) that run in front of the service entrance conductors?

Thanks.

[Garry Blankenship]

It looks a bit short and possibly under some strain at the termination point, but no.

[Jon Errickson]

Thanks guys!

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Yes its a problem, further reducing the already unacceptable lower calculated ratings for this obsolete panel with less-than-necessary clearances, wireway spaces, heat dissipation, bolted busses, etc.It is also unlikely the insulation for that lower amperage half phase hot conductor is sufficient to withstand 10,000 and its (the conductor's) presence in that close proximity area potentially defeats and certainly diminishes the series protection afforded by the main. The heat alone in that critical area can further long-term affect the conductor, the insulation thereon, etc.Its an obsolete panel with questionable non-original breaker substitutions and circuit additions. I also strongly suspect it has violated stab ratings. The label on the left side of the panel cabinet wall would address most every issue discussed.HTH.

[John Kogel]

Canadian inspectors note:
In Canada, service conductors are always separated from the branch circuits. In fact, a typical combination breaker panel in Canada has a separate partition and a separate cover to keep branch circuits away from the SECs.

[Jim Port]

Sloppy, yes. A problem, no. Until the NEC and the UL standards are changed you will continue to see branch circuit conductors and the SE conductors in close proximity with each other.

I have never seen a required conductor clearance stated from a main or any other breaker for the matter.

All the breakers look like Square D to me. I don't know why some think that every breaker always looks suspicious or has possibly been altered.

[Speedy Petey]

Sloppy, yes. A problem, no. Until the NEC and the UL standards are changed you will continue to see branch circuit conductors and the SE conductors in close proximity with each other.

I have never seen a required conductor clearance stated from a main or any other breaker for the matter.

All the breakers look like Square D to me. I don't know why some think that every breaker always looks suspicious or has possibly been altered.
THIS is your correct answer. On all points.



I also find it interesting that some would say the venerable SqD QO is an "obsolete" breaker. Every breaker in that panel is an original SqD QO series, of different ages of course.

[Jim Port]

I also find it interesting that some would say the venerable SqD QO is an "obsolete" breaker. Every breaker in that panel is an original SqD QO series, of different ages of course.

Those breakers has the same mounting arrangement as the new ones on the shelf. Hardly obsolete in my book, just an older panel.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Somewhat stupendous. Doesn't matter that the electricians haven't actually reviewed the standard or quite obviously not Sect. 408 in quite some time.

None of the conductors are allowed to cross the vertical space. That enclosed panelbord (vintage to the edition of both the NEC and the Standard at the time of manufacture) allowed only a single 90 degree bend of any conductor between its entrance and its termination. There is no barrier, none may cross (not even the other ungrounded conductors up above) from one vertical section to the other. Further distance from the (grounded/bonded when installed) cover.

Obsolete, YES. As pictured in violation, that is to say not in concert with, the Listed (at the time) Labeled instructions and limitations and the temperature ratings for the errantly routed conductor.

It IS a problem.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Already did.

[Jim Port]

Watson do you have some code references to back up your last post?

Don't hold your breathe waiting.

[Jim Port]

Already did.

Sorry, you did not. Post the appropriate text and the source or admit you are wrong.

Neither Article 408 nor the UL White book section on Panelboards says anyting about a limit on crossing over the SE conductors or between the vertical gutter or a limit on vertical bends.

[Speedy Petey]

Sorry, you did not. Post the appropriate text and the source or admit you are wrong.

Neither Article 408 nor the UL White book section on Panelboards says anyting about a limit on crossing over the SE conductors or between the vetical gutter or a limit on vertical bends.Also agree.

[Jim Port]

Looks like its time to call these guys,

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTviI80MAOGxCKZhwlhOq9gWd4Mz0kOX 8FLDyrERdDdQNrSqHSeSQ

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Oh yes they do. Obviously ignorant of what the actual listing Standard editions have said and addressed over the years, still blame to toss to those ignorant to read the label and limitations. The label is clearly present for this aged enclosed panelboard Its on the right (oops earlier, that's the "other" left..).

Present mkg guide notes 25 & 27 there for a reason, however you'd have to pull out an OLDER edition of a whitebook (hint 80s or prior) to get the full poop (vintage panelboard).

Presently obvious can't read all of 408.3, .55 & .56, or clueless as to what is stated therein.

Significant changes between the first and third cycles in the 80s. Significant changes in the Standards as well.

Not bothering to cross reference obsolete editions of the NEC to point you three to, since you'll never read them either.

The errantly routed grounded conductor in prox of bus mid top right also concerning.

Dini, Ode, and several others at and for UL have put together scores of articles & white ppers over the years providing summarizations of changes, you've been afforded direct links, and copies of them numerous times. The mfg still has numerous articles & bulletins on their site regarding legacy equipment.

Quite obviously you haven't seen fit to review or retain one iota. No point in responding further since you ignore the most obvious and often make disingenous statements and pepper additionally.

[Eric Barker]

Besides looking non-professional, is there anything wrong from a code or safety standpoint with the orange and neutral conductors on the right hand side (looking at the pic) that run in front of the service entrance conductors?Thanks.

Jon, I'll simply say that I would not have reported on it.

I'll also say that expecting perfection in all conditions I see would take the pleasure out of the job - at least for me.

[Jim Port]

Both 408.55 and 408.56 are from Article 408 Part IV Construction Specifications, and deal with the wire bending spaces and clearances between terminals and grounded surfaces. Neither of this mentions a limit on the path of a conductor, the number of bends or the other things that HG sees as an issue.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Both 408.55 and 408.56 are from Article 408 Part IV Construction Specifications, and deal with the wire bending spaces and clearances between terminals and grounded surfaces. Neither of this mentions a limit on the path of a conductor, the number of bends or the other things that HG sees as an issue.

You are being intentionally obtuse. They DO apply to the issue. Keep ignoring the Table as well, ignore ALL the language included within subsection 408.3 and its myriad subdivisions, exceptions, and notes! The two old-style tandems are of a non-CTL configuration/vintage and pre modern AIC ratings (lower numbers calculated not tested or proven) - so pick your poision and stick to which you're going to base your blinders-on-argument. Obsolete panel configuration, obsolete equipment, obsolete ratings. The panel is limited as to location of, number of, etc. The panel is applied in conflict with its listed instructions and original listing. Wireways and bends ARE and WERE covered at the time of mnufacture of THIS panel.

Furthermore, you ignore the unclosed openings topside, the unclosed empty wireway, and the overfilled emt in addition to the missing nut.

Finally, it appears that there is merely a single, continuous, looped orange insulated conductowhich enters and leaves the panel but is not originated or terminated therein. whether or not that is the case, it is not allowed to be within the space of the grounded bus, nor within proximity of the non-limited entrance conductors, terminals or busses of sme, nor in the air space heat space - branch wiring is limited even now at 60 and/or 75 C. Older insulation doesn't meet either. Still doesn't change the stab ratings violations or number of grounded conductor terminals or the LABELED listed instructions and diagram (upside down on the "other left").

[Jim Port]

The original question asked had nothing to due with the use of tandems, missing locknuts or a possibly overfilled conduit or bus stab rating. Again you try to divert the discussion into unrelated areas.

[Speedy Petey]

Now it's just getting comical. :D

[Jim Port]

Article 408.3 is titled "408.3 Support and Arrangement of Busbars and Conductors.
(A) Conductors and Busbars on a Switchboard or Panelboard."

This does not appear to be talking about field installed conductors that would be installed in the panel. The title using the word on seems to be referencing conductors that are part of the panel or switchboard. If they were talking about field wiring, (1) Location. Conductors and busbars shall be located so as to be free from physical damage and shall be held firmly in place. could not be accomplished without adding something like a sticky back Tywrap base and zipties or building in some sort of bracket arrangement to secure the field wiring to.

If the following is true, (2) Service Switchboards. Barriers shall be placed in all service switchboards such that no uninsulated, ungrounded service busbar or service terminal is exposed to inadvertent contact by persons or maintenance equipment while servicing load terminations.

There are no loadcenter designs that meet this criteria, but they have a listing without them. Again this seems to be talking about something besides a residential loadcenter as shown.