# Top breaker bottom feed?



## Bob Sisson (Dec 17, 2012)

There was a discussion in one of the other threads about Panelboxes with Main disconnect at the TOP being fed from the bottom....

I was just inspecting a Panelbox in a House with a GENERATOR. The original SE feed was from the top directly into the Main Disconnect.

The Generator crew re-routed the SE Feed to their Switch, and then feed the Panel box from the bottom, putting their 2/0 over top of all of the individual branch circuits.

This was a SIEMENS panel if it makes any difference.

One More question.

Since the GENERATOR PANEL now has the FIRST DISCONNECT after the meter, isn't everything after THAT panel technically a "sub" panel and should be wired with 4-wire not 3? (Gnd & separate Neutral and 2 hots) or does the Panel Bond, the Close Nipple and the Other "Main" Panel make that kind of mute? (But it's a PVC Nipple so that doesn't count)

To make it even MORE confusing, this was 2 x 200 service, so the panel to the left still comes directly from the meter enclosure, the Open panel, is fed from the Generator Switch which is feed from the Meter Enclosure AND the generator. They moved a LOT from the left panel to the right panel to make sure that everything the client wanted on the generator was in a single panel. I think they left maybe 8 circuits in the left panel. What started out as a nice balanced set of panels was left as one empty panel and one stuffed panel.

Anyway I asked the on-site electrician who was doing all the rest of the house (not the generator) who was supposedly a "Master" electrician, and he scratched his head and said -HE- had wired it from the top before the generator people had messed it up, but that he had wired similar panels with bottom feeds, so he wasn't sure....

So... the two questions are:

1 - Can you mix SERVICE WIRES and BRANCH CIRCUITS in the trough when you bottom feed a top disconnect panel (or is just wrong too many ways)?
-and- 
2 - Should this have been wired with 4-wires or 3-wires?

PS...the COUNTY electrical inspector OK'd it, not that that means anything...

I am just wondering about the GND's for the circuits that were moved, they are being feed from one place, but their GNDs are in the other panel which could be at a slightly different potential... Should the Panels been bonded together or would that make it worse? When running from the Generator, where is the GND reference for the circuits in the Left panel?


----------



## 1.21gigawatts (Jun 22, 2013)

Bob, those are no longer service wires at that point after the transfer switch and overcurretprotection.

Yes, it is quite common to run feeders or service entrance conductors to top feed or bottom feed breakers.

And yes, you are correct in that if the main bonding jumper is installed in the transfer equipment, and the neutrals are isolated in the panel to the right without a bonding jumper and that feed is a 3 wire with no ground, it was done improperly. I cannot see the bonding details in the picture to confirm this.


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

Also that GFCI should have a cover like this...

*Mulberry 11432 1 GFCI Receptacle Exposed Work Cover; 1/2 Inch Raised, Baked Cadilite Steel*















Not a Mud ring with a plastic cover..


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

Black Dog said:


> Also that GFCI should have a cover like this...
> 
> *Mulberry 11432 1 GFCI Receptacle Exposed Work Cover; 1/2 Inch Raised, Baked Cadilite Steel*
> 
> ...


Not a code violation.


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

Going_Commando said:


> Not a code violation.


406.5 say's otherwise...


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

Black Dog said:


> 406.5 say's otherwise...


OK, I read it. Don't see it.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Black Dog said:


> 406.5 say's otherwise...



Explain...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

That right hand panel looks SER fed Bob....~CS~


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

i can see harrys point with the very first sentence.


----------



## Bob Sisson (Dec 17, 2012)

Ok, I need some help here...
I looked at 406.5 and saw nothing about covers needing to be metal, can I have a year and a sub-section please?

Also what is SER fed?


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

my eyes are to tired to keep lookin in the book, so what i see is "cover meant for the pupose' part. a plaster ring is meant to be covered with plaster, and a standard plastic cover plate is meant to be flush with the wall, not hanhing out there to get broke. just 2 cents


----------



## Bob Sisson (Dec 17, 2012)

Found it... SE type R...

OK... but everything I found had an OBVIOUS ground...like on the other Panel... (2 wires plus sheath)

Maybe there was a bare copper in there somewhere, but I didn't see what I expected...

All I saw was a big Red, Black and White...maybe I hadn't had enough coffee yet and was looking for something larger than something tucked in behind (I don't poke) Compared to 2/0 a bare #6 might be easy to miss.


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

Bob Sisson said:


> Ok, I need some help here...
> I looked at 406.5 and saw nothing about covers needing to be metal, can I have a year and a sub-section please?
> 
> Also what is SER fed?


The mud ring is for a wall that will be covered with sheetrock or plywood and covered---The receptacle will sit on either surface and the plastic cover will also cover the receptacle and sit in the surface. that is what both are designed to do.

406.5(C) calls for a cover listed for the purpose.

Also it violates 110.3 B

And then we can read 406.6

The plastic cover does not seat against the mounting surface because there is no mounting surface..

406.6 Receptacle Faceplates (Cover Plates). Receptacle faceplates shall be installed so as to completely cover the opening and seat against the mounting surface.
Receptacle faceplates mounted inside a box having a recess-mounted receptacle shall effectively close the opening and seat against the mounting surface.


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

Black Dog said:


> The mud ring is for a wall that will be covered with sheetrock or plywood and covered---The receptacle will sit on either surface and the plastic cover will also cover the receptacle and sit in the surface. that is what both are designed to do.
> 
> 406.5(C) calls for a cover listed for the purpose.
> 
> ...


That nose bleed has effected your thinking!:jester:

The mud ring closes the opening on each side of the remaining single gang opening. The cover closes the rest of the opening.

The mounting surface is the mud ring and receptacle, and the cover is seated against it.

It's ugly but I don't see it as a code violation.:no:

I see nail-on boxes all the time in garages, sheds, barns, etc. that are just mounted in "open" space with plastic covers on them. Kinda the same thing as the metal box w/mud ring.


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

just because you see it doesnt make it right:whistling2:


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

papaotis said:


> just because you see it doesnt make it right:whistling2:


Maybe not, but the inspectors see it and they "deemed it right"!


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

touche!


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

A Little Short said:


> Maybe not, but the inspectors see it and they "deemed it right"!


Inspectors aren't always right.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Bob Sisson said:


> Found it... SE type R...
> 
> OK... but everything I found had an OBVIOUS ground...like on the other Panel... (2 wires plus sheath)
> 
> ...


Perhaps you've uncovered something i have not seen , or seen in a while Bob. Most SER (think round) being 4 wire, and SEU (think U shaped) being 3 wire is inclusive of a bare ground. Apparently you've a SEU with an insulated (white) ground and/or they cut it off ? :blink: I'd encourage you to inspect the end at the meter....

Also Genny's are covered in our art *445.* The thing about cutting a T switch into service conductors is, it's all got to be service rated. This is common, but a pita imho, from a number of standpoints.

Art *702* covers optional standby systems, i.e.- a resi genny. Of interest might be 702.4, basically stating the genny has to be good for the full load OR load managment. This is where the demand load calcs of the residence will dictate genny size (115%) , as well as what gets left in the non-genny panel.



Art *408.55* covers wire bending space within panels , hanging it's hat on table 312.6(B). Literally every LB installed does not meet *T312.6(B)*, and niether would 408.55 w/o the slew of exceptions for smaller resi panels. There is (or was?) a fill rating, but i can't find it this a.m.... (hopefully others will unfuzz me) 

As far as service entrance /branch circuit feeder mix, our Canadian brothers think we're nuts.....(i agree)

Art *230.72* covers grouping of discos. read A & B *230.75* addreses disconnection of grounded (so by proxy maybe GEC) conductors 

I gotta say, you've a can of worms here Bob.....

~CS~


----------



## Bob Sisson (Dec 17, 2012)

Yup, good can o worms.... lots to ponder, the AHJ said it was OK, but I want to learn what is "ok" and what is RIGHT.

The generator was rated for Full (managed) load. 22KW and switched the full 200A panel. There were "load Management" modules connected to the Heat pumps so they wouldn't try to start at the same time. 

AH, it was the Canadian poster who remarked that you shouldn't mix SE/branch stuff.

I may get the chance to re-inspect this house, and I will take a closer look at the gen panel >> Panel box feed cable.

I know that Gnd systems on instals like this are complicated, messy, involved, and PITA... I just wish I could have been there when they were instaling it so I could ask more questions.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Code violation or not, it's also a matter of professional pride IMO.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Bob, where is the generator switch located in relation to the two panels?


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

Black Dog said:


> 406.5 say's otherwise...


Plaster rings are designed to hold devices and have a cu in rating besides. Try again.


----------



## Bob Sisson (Dec 17, 2012)

The Gen panel is immediately to the left...

In the attached photo you can see the now almost vacant panel and the generator panel on the left wall...


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Bob Sisson said:


> The Gen panel is immediately to the left...
> 
> ...


Ok, I was just curious about the grouping of the service disconnects.


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

A Little Short said:


> *That nose bleed has effected your thinking!:jester:*


Yes I have gone mad in the head the past few weeks:laughing:

The Doc said no ice cold Beer



A Little Short said:


> The mud ring closes the opening on each side of the remaining single gang opening. The cover closes the rest of the opening.
> 
> The mounting surface is the mud ring and receptacle, and the cover is seated against it.
> 
> ...


This is what I love about you guys is you will stand up for butcher work on the grounds that the code MAY not say it's hack-----But does it? I pointed out a few articles that in my opinion will not allow such butchery, however it does not out right say so, therefore the articles are open to interpretation, and this is why the NEC has created a 118 year heated discussion that will continue long after we all kick the bucket .:laughing:


----------



## ohiosparky99 (Nov 12, 2009)

We actually do this setup quite often with 1 transfer switch for only 1 of the 2 panels, normally we try and sell an additional transfer switch. The panel they are backing up in the above setup definately needs a ground and the panel needs the grounds and nuetrals separated like mentioned before


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

A Little Short said:


> Maybe not, but the inspectors see it and they *"deemed it right"*!





backstay said:


> Inspectors aren't always right.


I didn't say they were always right. That's why I said they "deemed" it right.
Also, more than one inspector has seen this and none have said anything about it.

But I still say even though it's ugly it's not a code violation. From what I've read, the intent of the code was to guard/protect the live circuitry, and to prevent any arcing that might occur from within the box from exiting the box, with the cover. Since the cover closes the opening, along with the mud ring, I think the code has been satisfied.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

A Little Short said:


> I didn't say they were always right. That's why I said they "deemed" it right.
> Also, more than one inspector has seen this and none have said anything about it.
> 
> But I still say even though it's ugly it's not a code violation. From what I've read, the intent of the code was to guard/protect the live circuitry, and to prevent any arcing that might occur from within the box from exiting the box, with the cover. Since the cover closes the opening, along with the mud ring, I think the code has been satisfied.


You're correct, I said the word "always". You seem a little thin skinned.


----------



## David C (May 19, 2015)

Funny how they think wirenuts belongs in a breaker panel. They don't allow something this goofy up here.


----------



## Bob Sisson (Dec 17, 2012)

oh, Oh... Wirenuts....

Saw this the other day in a "Flipper" type house....Someone used a spare Lug as a wire nut for the grounds in a panel...and then just left the lug hanging... 

Am I wrong to say this is not "normal" I didn't say wrong, just not, uhm...right?

Oh yea, and they re-used some old painted two-pole breakers from another job.... (actually 2-2pole and 2-single pole, any trouble seeing which they were?)

TWO AFCI were tripped when I got there, and there were a LOT of dead outlets...wonder if they were related to the open box in the attic which was UGLY with a capital "Ug", oh and lots of open grounds...and...and... and they passed their electrical final about a month ago... really they did.


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

just cause there paint on em dont mean they aint new! but seriously, they could be very new, but cleaning up would have been nice. and all that stuff you said PASSED?


----------



## Somewhere_401 (Apr 7, 2014)

Bob Sisson said:


> oh, Oh... Wirenuts....
> 
> Saw this the other day in a "Flipper" type house........open box in the attic which was UGLY with a capital "Ug", oh and lots of open grounds...and...and... and they passed their electrical final about a month ago... really they did.


--

Right, they passed about a month ago, and the real "work" was done last week, which is why it is a rushed rats nest of butchery.....:whistling2:

Oh well, more work... The sad thing is so many buyers are caught on what looks "pretty and nice" and who cares about what is behind the walls. When you walk into a house and can count the violations on one hand, plus poor workmanship on the other, and the homeowner is the architect....:no:


----------



## Bob Sisson (Dec 17, 2012)

Yup, I pulled the permit History
Had lots of canceled's and failed's in the list, but in the end all of the work passed....


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Bob Sisson said:


> ...Someone used a spare Lug as a wire nut for the grounds in a panel...and then just left the lug hanging...
> Am I wrong to say this is not "normal" I didn't say wrong, just not, uhm...right?
> ...


It is most likely a violation of 110.14(A).


> 110.14(A)...*Terminals for more than one conductor* and terminals used to connect aluminum *shall be so identified*.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

David C said:


> Funny how they think wirenuts belongs in a breaker panel. They don't allow something this goofy up here.


Nothing wrong with a wirenut in a panel. The things you guys are nitpicking are trivial.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

David C said:


> Funny how they think wirenuts belongs in a breaker panel. They don't allow something this goofy up here.



I'm not even in Canada but I know wire nuts are allowed in your panels too. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Voltron (Sep 14, 2012)

David C said:


> Funny how they think wirenuts belongs in a breaker panel. They don't allow something this goofy up here.


Code section?


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

4SQUARE said:


> Code section?


I'll give David C a wee hand here. The code rule is in Section 6, Services and service equipment. I'm sure he will find it for you! 

Borgi


----------



## David C (May 19, 2015)

Actually section 12 defines more precisely what is being said in section 6 regarding the content of breaker panel.

6-212 and 12-3032 if my memory serves me right. In short, since the panel is designed to hold only the volume required for each circuit breaker, adding unnecessary conductors and connectors clearly reduce the available space designed for the proper conductors, add resistance to the load that translate into heat that could affect the internal mechanism of a thermomagnetic circuit breaker, present a safety hazard (even more in a messy/loaded panel) and could lead to a failure if a wirenut isn't properly tighten or installed, as well as being damaged or loosen from handling nearby wires, etc.

And it's very ugly.

I'll email the question to the master electrician corp. and see what they think about making joints or using wirenuts in panels.


----------



## AK_sparky (Aug 13, 2013)

6-212 (1) Enclosures for circuit breakers and externally operated switches shall not be used as junction boxes, troughs, or raceways for conductors feeding through or tapping off to other apparatus.

12-3032 (1) Enclosures for overcurrent devices, controllers, and externally operated switches shall not be used as junction boxes, troughs, or raceways for conductors feeding through to other apparatus.




Seems pretty clear to me


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

AK_sparky said:


> 6-212 (1) Enclosures for circuit breakers and externally operated switches shall not be used as junction boxes, troughs, or raceways for conductors feeding through or tapping off to other apparatus.
> 
> 12-3032 (1) Enclosures for overcurrent devices, controllers, and externally operated switches shall not be used as junction boxes, troughs, or raceways for conductors feeding through to other apparatus.
> 
> ...


We have a similar rule/code but there is an "unless" in ours!



> 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
> ...


It would take quite a number of wire nuts & splices to take up 40-75% of the cross sectional area of a panel.
So yes, we (US) can make a splice in a panel.


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

maybe i missed that in the picture, where are these wires feeding through to another 'panel or apperatus?


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

The key term there is "feeding through". Basically, every wire has to be origionating from the panel. We cannot use the panel as a j-box.
Connecting a doorbell transformer,2 wires that have to terminate under one breaker, wire too short....all good reasons to make a splice in a panel......and all meet CEC code.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

A Little Short said:


> We have a similar rule/code but there is an "unless" in ours!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


CEC has a rule kinda the same.
12-3032(4)enclosures for overcurrent devices shall be permitted to be used as a raceway for wiring associated with instrument transformers and energy usage metering devices provided that (b) wiring does not fill 75% of the space.


Also (2)(a)(ii) the enclosure identified shall be permitted to b used as a j-box where wiring is added to an existing installation and the conductors, splices and taps do not fill more than 75%


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Good point eddy current! :thumbsup:

But, some inspectors will call you on it, either their interpretation is different, or they don't want to take the time to verify where the conductors originate from.

I do my best, if at all possible, to make all splices outside the panel. To avoid the possible interpretation battle with the inspector, plus it looks cleaner and neater. Quality of work and all! 2-108. :laughing:

Now, sometimes, with energy management equipment, it's unavoidable.

When I see splices in a panel I cringe, but I do take the time to investigate!  

Borgi


----------

