Thread: Panel question

Downstream panel was installed adjacent to service equipment and some of the breakers were moved over to it. Hot conductors were spliced in the original service equipment panel to reach over to the new panel. Neutral conductors remained in the original panel. Is this acceptable? See photo.
Thanks

Similar Threads:

• Feed From Main Panel to Sub Panel
• 100-amp service panel question
• Panel question
• Service Eq. Panel Wiring Question
• Service panel question

Matthew,

I have seen additional panels installed when a backup generator is installed. I don't see a problem with that.

JP has said that panels are not intended to function as junction boxes. That it is acceptable to splice if the conductors are connected to terminals in the panel, but not to pass through. Not sure that I understand why one would be OK and the other not.

I have read that the blue ENT "smurf tube" is not acceptable for wiring, but in my Code Check, it seems to be OK.

What is that black thingy at the top of the 3rd pic that has the black, red and green wires to it? The wires appear to originate at the breaker at the top/right of the panel.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

JP has said that panels are not intended to function as junction boxes. That it is acceptable to splice if the conductors are connected to terminals in the panel, but not to pass through. Not sure that I understand why one would be OK and the other not.

The old "You can't use a panel as a splice box" thing has gotten blown way and misinterpreted out of proportion over the years.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

I have read that the blue ENT "smurf tube" is not acceptable for wiring, but in my Code Check, it seems to be OK.

You actually read that somewhere? If it is not good for wiring, then what is it good for???

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

What is that black thingy at the top of the 3rd pic that has the black, red and green wires to it? The wires appear to originate at the breaker at the top/right of the panel.

That is a generator power inlet. It is a male plug in a flanged housing. Same as you would see in a Gen-Tran type panel.

Gunnar,

That is actually what it is...a generator transfer switch and panel box. Thanks for the input. I remember plenty of debate about panels being used as junction boxes but my main concern was that all branch neutrals still terminated in the original panel. I am not sure why it would make a big difference, but seemed like they may have taken a short cut by not doing it.

Originally Posted by Matthew Barnicle

I am not sure why it would make a big difference, but seemed like they may have taken a short cut by not doing it.

That panel was designed to be done that way. As you can see there are only a couple of neutral termination points.

Originally Posted by Speedy Petey

You actually read that somewhere? If it is not good for wiring, then what is it good for???

I do remember reading that. I could very well have misinterpreted, but that is what I remember. I wondered what else it would be used for.

Thew blue tubing is ENT. Electrical Nonmetallic Tubing - it is a recognized conduit by the NEC.

You are allowed to splice in a panel as long as you don't exceed a certain percentage of the gutter space. I'm not positive as to the exact percentage and don't have the current NEC handy at the moment.

I do hope you looked closely at the connectors that are installed on that ENT.
They do look an awful lot like PVC male adapters (connectors). The connectors I've seen for ENT are blue like the tubing.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

JP has said that panels are not intended to function as junction boxes. That it is acceptable to splice if the conductors are connected to terminals in the panel, but not to pass through. Not sure that I understand why one would be OK and the other not.

Originally Posted by Speedy Petey

The old "You can't use a panel as a splice box" thing has gotten blown way and misinterpreted out of proportion over the years.

You actually read that somewhere? If it is not good for wiring, then what is it good for???

Peter,

Gunnar is correct.

The code address that issue as well as the UL standard to which panels are listed and labeled, as well as all of the Senior Engineers at UL I have talked with over the years.

The code, in fact, IS quite explicit: (bold and underlining are mine)
- 312.8 Enclosures for Switches or Overcurrent Devices.
- - Enclosures for switches or overcurrent devices shall not be used as junction boxes, auxiliary gutters, or raceways for conductors feeding through or tapping off to other switches or overcurrent devices, unless adequate space for this purpose is provided. The conductors shall not fill the wiring space at any cross section to more than 40 percent of the cross-sectional area of the space, and the conductors, splices, and taps shall not fill the wiring space at any cross section to more than 75 percent of the cross-sectional area of that space.

There are two key parts to that first sentence, which prefaces the las sentence: 1) "shall not be used as" and "unless ... for this purpose is provided".

First and foremost is "shall not be used as" and then lists what it shall not be use as. Second is "unless .... space for this purpose is provided" and the wiring space IS NOT provided "for this purpose".

The last sentence only governs how much space may be used "for this purpose" if space is actually provided "for this purpose" ... and space is not provided "for this purpose".

Plain and simply, then, with *no space for this purpose provided* there is *no space* which is allowed to be used for that purpose.

So how would you explain this?

The conductors shall not fill the wiring space at any cross section to more than 40 percent of the cross-sectional area of the space, and the conductors, splices, and taps shall not fill the wiring space at any cross section to more than 75 percent of the cross-sectional area of that space.

You seem to be hung up on the words for this purpose. Since I don't see any area designated with a purpose by delineation could you please expand?

I agree with Jim. The words "for this purpose" are superfluous. What do think the space inside the panel is designed for??? What IS it's purpose??? Wiring, what else.

Jerry, you seem to be under the impression that if one were to make splices in a panel that an extra amount of space should be required. This is simply NOT so.
Look at the wording: ".....unless adequate space for this purpose is provided."
Not "extra" space. Adequate space.

Do you realize what it would take to fill 75% of the gutter space in a panel?? Think about that number for a while.

Splices most definitely allowed in a panel. NO "extra" space is needed for this purpose. EVERY electrician and EVERY inspector I have ever encountered has agrees with this interpretation.
I have to say Jerry, yours is the first interpretation like that that I have ever heard.

Seems kind of like saying you can't fit five pounds of sugar in a sack unless space is provided. No kidding. Did anyone think you could fit it in a 2 lb sack?

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Seems kind of like saying you can't fit five pounds of sugar in a sack unless space is provided. No kidding. Did anyone think you could fit it in a 2 lb sack?

Jim, (and Peter),

Nope. Wrong again, Jim.

What that is like is this: It is like saying you ARE NOT ALLOWED to put 5 pounds of sugar into the sack unless the sack SAYS IT IS FOR SUGAR.

CAN you do it? Sure.

IS IT RIGHT? NOPE.

Which is no different than conduit and box fill.

The code simply says YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to over fill conduits and boxes, but ... get IT CAN BE DONE? Sure.

On a different note...

Ran into a panel in a mobile home bathroom. Home was built in the mid 1970s and had some improperly wired multi-wire circuits, so it needs an electrical contractor in any case.

Now, as I recall, circuit breaker panels are not allowed to be in bathrooms, but HUD does allow some goofy things. Does anyone know of any case where a panel would be allowed in a mobile home bathroom?

Just because there is a splice in the panel does not mean it is over filled. As long as you are below the 75% fill you are good. Seventy five percent filled would take a lot to achieve.

No one had said anything about being overfilled.


Again the question about what the space inside a panel is for was dodged.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

So how would you explain this?

The conductors shall not fill the wiring space at any cross section to more than 40 percent of the cross-sectional area of the space, and the conductors, splices, and taps shall not fill the wiring space at any cross section to more than 75 percent of the cross-sectional area of that space.

You seem to be hung up on the words for this purpose. Since I don't see any area designated with a purpose by delineation could you please expand?

Jim,

I explained that already, if you were comprehending what you were reading, if in fact you even bothered to read it.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

The last sentence only governs how much space may be used "for this purpose" if space is actually provided "for this purpose" ... and space is not provided "for this purpose".

There is a reason the words "FOR THIS PURPOSE" are in there.

I think this is clearly a case of agree-to-disagree.

Luckily we can do that.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Just because there is a splice in the panel does not mean it is over filled. As long as you are below the 75% fill you are good. Seventy five percent filled would take a lot to achieve.

Jim,

As usual ...

You really have no idea what you are saying or talking about, do you?

That code section applies to fill for ALLOWED conductors.

That code section does NOT allow (as you stated) "As long as you are below that 75% fill you are good.", that code section allows ONLY for 40% fill FOR CONDUCTORS with the additional 35% for THE SPLICES AND TAPS(to the total of 75% for the conductors AND the splices and taps).

Again the question about what the space inside a panel is for was dodged.

Jim ... Jim ... when will you learn to read?

I have answered that question several times so far. No, I will not answer it every single time you ask the same question until you: a) learn to read; b) learn to comprehend what you read; c) learn to retain what you read and comprehended; d) and started posting with some semblance of thinking and knowledge behind the post - listening to some rant the same thing over and over and over when they do not understand what they are ranting about is boring and gets ignored.

Wake up and smell the roses, and if that does not work, then smell your feet, maybe that will wake you up.

Originally Posted by Speedy Petey

I think this is clearly a case of agree-to-disagree.

Luckily we can do that.

Then you are disagreeing with UL, their standards, their testing, listing, and labeling.

If that is what you want, no one can stop you ... until you are in an AHJ who catches you and educates you more fully than it seems I am able to do ... their education teaching is sometimes simply "not approved 312.8 - correction required, re-inspection fee".

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

On a different note...

Ran into a panel in a mobile home bathroom. Home was built in the mid 1970s and had some improperly wired multi-wire circuits, so it needs an electrical contractor in any case.

Now, as I recall, circuit breaker panels are not allowed to be in bathrooms, but HUD does allow some goofy things. Does anyone know of any case where a panel would be allowed in a mobile home bathroom?

In all actuality you are allowed to put circuit breaker panels in bathrooms.
You can not put service disconnecting means in a bathroom. Nec art. 230.70 (A)

So if that mobile home has the service disconnecting means on the exterior of the mobile home, the panel inside is a sub-panel. Thus the service disconnecting means is not in the bathroom.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Then you are disagreeing with UL, their standards, their testing, listing, and labeling.

Again, I disagree. You are expressing an interpretation, NOT cold hard fact.
Like I said, I have NEVER hear this interpretation before, even from any electrical inspector I have ever met.
I have installed literally dozens of Gen-Tran panels, and probably hundreds f panel changes, many with a couple of splices. Never has this been even touched upon.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

If that is what you want, no one can stop you ... until you are in an AHJ who catches you and educates you more fully than it seems I am able to do ...

Jerry, you are a very smart guy, and I am sure there are a few things you could probably teach me, but please do not go there. You will NOT convince me that your interpretation on this is correct.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

......their education teaching is sometimes simply "not approved 312.8 - correction required, re-inspection fee".

See above.
If I EVER heard or saw this from an inspector the next step would be a call to their supervisor, NOT a trip back to the job to fix something that is NOT broken.

Originally Posted by ken horak

In all actuality you are allowed to put circuit breaker panels in bathrooms.

Ken,

Actually, you are not allowed to put panels in bathrooms.
- ARTICLE 240 Overcurrent Protection
- - II. Location.
- - - 240.24 Location in or on Premises.
- - - - (E) Not Located in Bathrooms. In dwelling units and guest rooms or guest suites of hotels and motels, overcurrent devices, other than supplementary overcurrent protection, shall not be located in bathrooms.

In mobile homes and manufactured homes? Maybe, I am not sure about that as they do a lot of things differently. Nonetheless, I would write it up as being 'not the safest or brightest idea of a location' for the panel.

Originally Posted by Speedy Petey

Again, I disagree. You are expressing an interpretation, NOT cold hard fact.
Like I said, I have NEVER hear this interpretation before, even from any electrical inspector I have ever met.

Peter,

You apparently missed some things in my posts above.

(bold is added)

The code address that issue as well as the UL standard to which panels are listed and labeled, as well as all of the Senior Engineers at UL I have talked with over the years.

When I need to get to the bottom of something and find out what the answer is, I call the manufacturers, talk to their engineers, call UL, NFPA, talk to their engineers, etc.

As stated above, THAT OPINION is from the Senior Engineers I talked with at UL, it is NOT MY opinion ... *I* asked the question, *THEY* answered it with that explanation.

Jerry-
Touche'
I was thinking about the manufactures of mobile homes and those job site office trailers.
Where else can one get away with using 2x3 studs and run NM without nail plates?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Ken,

Actually, you are not allowed to put panels in bathrooms.
- ARTICLE 240 Overcurrent Protection
- - II. Location.
- - - 240.24 Location in or on Premises.
- - - - (E) Not Located in Bathrooms. In dwelling units and guest rooms or guest suites of hotels and motels, overcurrent devices, other than supplementary overcurrent protection, shall not be located in bathrooms.

.

Jerry,

Again you make a blanket statement that is not true. Panels are allowed in bathrooms not listed in the above section.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

As stated above, THAT OPINION is from the Senior Engineers I talked with at UL, it is NOT MY opinion ... *I* asked the question, *THEY* answered it with that explanation.

Peter,

I can expand on their answer and their hypothetical scenarios as to the reason if you would like.

Nah, That's OK. I'm good.

Not allowed in dwelling unit bathrooms, which was essentially what I thought.

Thanks.

Last I looked, the NEC was neither written, nor enforced, by anonymous engineers at UL, or anywhere else.

Nor is there a single UL standard that differentiates between the uses different parts of an open space may be used for. Open space is open space.

The only code prohibition that would ban making splices of un-associated circuits in a panel is the one specific to motor controllers.

If there's room, you can splice. Period. Even if the wires are from an entirely different system (hence the 'foreign power' labeling requirement).

I should also like to observe that there is no code rule addressing 'wire nuts' outside of panels.

Originally Posted by John Steinke

Last I looked, the NEC was neither written, nor enforced, by anonymous engineers at UL, or anywhere else.

Ummm ... John, did you miss the part about NEC 110.3(B)?

Nor is there a single UL standard that differentiates between the uses different parts of an open space may be used for. Open space is open space.

Actually, there. It is called UL Standard 67.

Panelboards and their associated enclosures are tested, listed, and labeled to UL Standard 67. The NEC states: 110.3(B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

Being as the standard includes NO PROVISIONS and NO TESTS for pass through current ... nada ... zip ... none ... the LISTING ... (see that part in 110.3(B) above) ... NO PASS THROUGH current, i.e., no conductors passing through, are allowed. None. Zip. Nada.

How much current is allowed to pass through the panel? 10 amps? 1,000 amps? No one knows how much will effect the heat rise of the panel under fully loaded conditions as THERE IS NOT EVEN A TEST FOR THAT - NO MANUFACTURER HAS EVER ASKED FOR A LISTING TO ADDRESS THAT. The UL Standard 67 does not allow for that, and the wording in the standard is very specific as to what is being tested and therefore allowed, and it EXCLUDES that testing.

UL has a listing for a panelboard with through conductors which tap off the mains and the listing and labeling includes marking which identifies it for such purpose, however, any other configuration, even with that marking, for through conductors HAS NOT TEST, NO LISTING, and NO LABELING OR MARKING.

I have never seen an installation marked for use as in Fig A, nor have I ever seen one installed (albeit there is a listing for that). There are no listings for through conductors originating from outside the panelboard to pass through the panelboard and go back out of the panelboard without landing on a breaker in the panelboard. Also note that the even the panelboard which is labeled and marked for through conductors has the conductors landing on its terminals - NOT simply "passing through" the panelboard.

UL 67 says nothing apart from that there will be enough bending space. I certainly doesn't say a word about drawing an imaginary line in a box and claiming 'to the left is for X and to the right is for y."

Your take on 'listing and labeling" is incorrect, in that your use of the grammar of the language is flawed. If there is space, it may be used for splices; absent a specific prohibition, your only restriction in the NEC is box fill.

110.3 ... manufacturers' instructions .... just what does UL manufacture?

Next thing you know, some fool will be claiming it's illegal to run a wire straight through a 'junction box' ... because there's no junction!

Originally Posted by John Steinke

110.3 ... manufacturers' instructions .... just what does UL manufacture?

Ummmm ... John ... why did you drop "instructions included in the listing " and instead try to slip in "manufacturer's instructions"?

Oh, right, because the code does not say what YOU want it to , the code is saying what I am pointing out that it says.

That is precisely the type of stuff I was was saying about you only following code when YOU WANT TO, and not following code when you do not want to.

John, the code is there, like it or not, it is there, and the code says EXACTLY what I posted it says.

After reading all the posts listed above it got me wonder...if I was a lawyer and in a court room and I saw Jerry Peck sitting across from me, I would whisper in my client ear, better start thinging about settle this out of court. There expert witness is Jerry Peck.

Originally Posted by Robert S. Mattison

After reading all the posts listed above it got me wonder...if I was a lawyer and in a court room and I saw Jerry Peck sitting across from me, I would whisper in my client ear, better start thinging about settle this out of court. There expert witness is Jerry Peck.

I would venture to say then, that it's a good thing your not a lawyer .
A good lawyer would locate their own code "expert" who also is talented in the art of word smithing.
Or better yet get the code making panel who worked on the section(s) in question in the court room.This would bring out the true code intent and desires!

An old phrase comes to mind about "baffling them", but I don't want to make this sound like an attack on anyone so I'm not posting it and who is doing the "baffling"

Jerry, can you show me where any listing says "no splicing of wires passing through?" I don't see it. Nor do I see how that position can be inferred from anything in the White Book.

Oddly enough, I can think of one example where the manufacturer's instructions are in direct conflict with the UL listing .... you might want to ask your Square D rep about that, if you really want to annoy him.

Splice all you want, as long as there is space. Any space - not 'designated' space. Naturally, those familiar with the trade know this - that's what they're taught. Their training has relevance - that's why the NEC plainly tells you in Article 90 that it presumes that you know the trade, and that it is not an instruction manual.

Originally Posted by Robert S. Mattison

After reading all the posts listed above it got me wonder...if I was a lawyer and in a court room and I saw Jerry Peck sitting across from me, I would whisper in my client ear, better start thinging about settle this out of court. There expert witness is Jerry Peck.

I think that would confuse anyone enough to go for the reasonable doubt issue.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Jerry,

Again you make a blanket statement that is not true. Panels are allowed in bathrooms not listed in the above section.

Jim,

Again ... reading seems to be one of your weak areas, you need to brush up on your reading.

The bathrooms UNDER DISCUSSION ... you blithering idiot ... are not excluded from that code section by that code section.

You are, no doubt, referring to non-residential, non-dwelling unit, non-guest room, etc., bathrooms (such as are in commercial buildings, as an example) and to which there is no included exclusion.

Originally Posted by John Steinke

Jerry, can you show me where any listing says "no splicing of wires passing through?" I don't see it.

John,

As one who has self-anointed himself as being the knowledgeable one, you should know that panelboards are listed to standards, in this case UL 67, and in the Standard to which they are listed is the information which applies to the listing, and, as you should know, being a self-anointed one, all the information in the Standard to which they are listed is not placed on the label. The labels would not be large enough for all the listing conditions which were tested and to which the panelboard met to attain its listing.

If you did not know that and what I posted is new information to you, then you know less than I give you credit for.

So I will ask again. Why did the CMP specifically mention splices if they are not allowed?

Nice bluster, Jerry. How about posting the exact exerpt of the UL standard that you have in mind, for all to read?

John,

You are the one who blusters, first going with code then discarding code when it does not fit you, then changing the wording of code to make it mean what you are want it to mean, etc.

I deal in facts and words, the code says what it says, and I don't go changing its wording to suit me, you are the one who does that.

When I need to find something out, I go to the horse's mouth and find it out. I had sections of UL 67 in my e-mail communications, which, along with my other e-mails, were lost is computer crashes years ago. I do, however, have some files which were my questions and letters from back then as they were e-mail attachments and not lost in those crashes, and they give part of the conversations.

John, I deal in facts and words, you deal in what you want to think and what you want things to say, not what they really say.

Nov. 29, 1999 Letter opens my eyes.

So this just makes the job, wiring the standby generator circuit breaker
panel, more expense for the customer.

Do I personal believe that, this is going stop people from doing it the way
it was done in the attach supplied photos? NO!

I pesonal believe that the MFG. of the product, may had supply instruc-
tions, that produce the end result, that we see in the picture in the supplied photos.


PLEASE NOTE: the above is only my personal opininion.

First of all, Jerry, you owe Jim Port an apology for calling him a blithering idiot. That is completely unwarranted.

The NEC makes nothing but a general statement, on that falls back on the general wire fill rule. "Provided for the purpose" is simply that - space provided for wiring - and not space that is, say, provided specifically for splicing certain wires. The grammar does not support your contention, nor does trade practice. This is further supported by the ONE specific instance in the NEC (motor controllers) where the issue is addressed. Basic logic tells us: they would not have forbidden the practice in a specific instance, unless that practice were generally permitted.

As for the attachments: three are written by you, and restate your belief. The fourth, from UL, simply says that UL has not evaluated panels for particular arrangements.

That is a far cry from asserting that such a practice violates the terms of the listing; all UL is saying is that they never considered it, and therefor don't know, and have no opinion on the matter.

Good heavens, it is simply not possible to evaluate even a simple wire nut for every possible combination of wires, and means of inserting those wires. When it comes to splicing and wire fill, we have to return to the basic rules; you can be certain that nobody - not UL, the manufacturer, or anyone else - has been able to evaluate a panel for every imaginable situation.

I like that part of the NEC where it refers to anything containing 'overcurrent devices.' Ever see a control panel, even a simple pump controller? They contain overcurrent devices - and have all manner of 'other' wires in them, wires that are not associated with those overcurrent devices at all. For example, the floats and panel itself are often powered by an independent circuit that is protected back at the panel.

Your reading of the NEC would make it impossible to build a control panel. Or, for that matter, install an E-Mon D-Mon meter.

Maybe you don't like wires that pass through a panel .... and you're entitled to your likes and dislikes ... but that doesn't make something 'wrong.' If you can't be objective, maybe you need a new line of work. Heck, there are all manner of things I don't like ... but I'm able to separate 'what I like' from 'what the rules say.'

Originally Posted by John Steinke

First of all, Jerry, you owe Jim Port an apology for calling him a blithering idiot. That is completely unwarranted.

Nah, it was not unwarranted. May have been unnecessary as he has been showing that himself, but "unnecessary" and "unwarranted" are not the same thing.