Originally Posted By: Timothy Pope This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
As I understand it, Romex sheathing should not project into a panel more than 1", right? What about sheathing that has been added over wires for labeling purposes?
Originally Posted By: Timothy Pope This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
From 2000 Codecheck:
Electrical>Romex(Nonmetallic Sheathed Cable)
“Min. 1/4in. sheathing into box (max 1in.)” IRC 3805.3.1
Also in Dearborn's Principles of Home Inspection, "Electrical Systems" p.115 giving reasons such as makes the wire hard to work with, allows heat to build up and adds fuel to a fire in the panel.
Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Timothy Pope wrote:
From 2000 Codecheck:
Electrical>Romex(Nonmetallic Sheathed Cable)
"Min. 1/4in. sheathing into box (max 1in.)" IRC 3805.3.1
Also in Dearborn's Principles of Home Inspection, "Electrical Systems" p.115 giving reasons such as makes the wire hard to work with, allows heat to build up and adds fuel to a fire in the panel.
The controlling document is generally the NEC and that "maximum" is not there.
I also question the heat buildup and fuel statements. Heat will be the same and NM sheath is "flame retardant" by specification in 334.116(A)
341.17(C) says cables entering a box or conduit body should have the sheath a minimum of 1/4" but no max is given. This distance is not specified for cabinets (panelboard enclosures) as far as I can tell.
Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I googled IRC 3805.3.1 and got one hit from a government site using the IRC. It did echo the 1/4" minimum language we have in 314.17 but I didn’t see the 1" maximum mentioned. I don’t have access to the IRC.
It should be pointed out that this rule refers to "boxes". A panelboard enclosure is a "cabinet". I don't see this referenced in 312 at all, except in 312.5(C)ex(e) that refers to cables that are coming in through sleeves, not secured at the cabinet end.
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
CodeCheck 4th Edition (2004) only lists “Min 1/4” sheathing into box", and references 2003 IRC E3805.3.1 and 2002 NEC 314.17C
IRC E3805.3.1 also only has the 1/4" minimum requirement, and no maximum. I understand the 1" maximum is just considered good trade practice, and I usually do not see more than that amount of NM sheathing projecting into a box or cabinet.
I don't see it as a huge issue, but it may become a consideration in a packed "birds nest" panel since it will take up more space.
Just my opinion and 2-nickels ... 
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Since there is always going to be a lot of conductor in a panel board enclosure I am not sure whether the sheath adds to or actually reduces the clutter. I did think the short piece of sheath in the OPs picture was an elegant way to label the incoming wires. I certainly would not think of it as a violation in any way. The only thing I would be looking at is whether they knicked the conductor insulation when they severed these pieces from the main cable.
Originally Posted By: Lance Clor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The romex is the least of the problems. Note the white/neutral conductor (with red tape) on the 3rd double pole breaker. The white wire is NEVER to be used as an ungrounded phase conductor. Also, if this is a residence where is the main disconnect. Bus will always be energized. BAD.
Originally Posted By: bbadger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Lance Clor wrote:
The romex is the least of the problems. Note the white/neutral conductor (with red tape) on the 3rd double pole breaker. The white wire is NEVER to be used as an ungrounded phase conductor.
I agree with Greg as long as it is a cable assembly you may reidentifiy the white wire.
Lance Clor wrote:
Also, if this is a residence where is the main disconnect. Bus will always be energized. BAD.
The main disconnect may be (better be) at the meter socket however you made me really look at this panel. I see a solid bare going to the neutral bar and the bonding strap. That is a problem considering this panel does not contain the service disconnect.
Timothy The bonding of this panel is wrong, it should be checked by a competent electrician.
-- Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN
Originally Posted By: Blaine Wiley This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
That panel looks like it is on the exterior of the home.
Bob,
Wouldn't that panel be ok if the disconnect were in the adjacent panel? I see a lot of that here. One panel with only the disconnect connected by conduit to the service panel with all of the branches.
Originally Posted By: bbadger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
bwiley wrote:
That panel looks like it is on the exterior of the home.
I agree. 
bwiley wrote:
Bob,
Wouldn't that panel be ok if the disconnect were in the adjacent panel?
No, not if we follow the NEC, the bonding must be before or in the same enclosure as the service disconnect.
bwiley wrote:
I see a lot of that here. One panel with only the disconnect connected by conduit to the service panel with all of the branches.
OK let me tell you how I really feel.
It is an NEC violation, however I have no doubt that it could be an "accepted trade practice" in certain areas. The inspectors may very well look the other way on this.
The down fall with this is that the neutral is bonded to the meter enclosure and bonded to the panel enclosure. This makes the metal raceway in between the two enclosures a 'neutral conductor' and the metal raceway will have current running through it.
Strangely enough this is allowed on the supply side of the service disconnect but never on the load side of the service disconnect.
Would I lose sleep over this?
Not a chance, but it is incorrect and would be easily corrected.
Bob
-- Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Greg Fretwell wrote:
I am not sure whether the sheath adds to or actually reduces the clutter
I think having the NM sheathing extend farther into the panel would reduce the clutter, but also reduce the space (free air) around the wires. Hmmmm ... probably would have to use the outside NM cable dimensions/area to figure gutter fill.
bbadger wrote:
I see a solid bare going to the neutral bar and the bonding strap. That is a problem considering this panel does not contain the service disconnect.
Good pickup ... I didn't look that close either at first. That is why ya need to be up-close-and-personal to really inspect a panel. Seems to be pretty easy to fix considering the neutral and ground/bond wires are on separate bars.
Add double lug neutrals to the list of things to be fixed ... 
And I am left wondering how the NM cable was correctly secured at the panel?
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: Timothy Pope This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Subject changers!!!
Exactly, that's the problem. There is no main disconnect at all. The service wires come straight from the meter through a plastic raceway into this box.
So, wouldn't this then be considered the service panel and bonding should be done here?
Notice they could have uncluttered the right neutral bar, by utilizing the one on the left as well. (slightly showing behind that group of black wires)
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Greg Fretwell wrote:
You can reidentify a white wire if it is in a cable
HOWEVER, that white conductor must not only be re-identified at its termination, but also at "each location where the conductor is visible and accessible."
200.7 Use of Insulation of a White or Gray Color or with Three Continuous White Stripes.
(1) If part of a cable assembly and where the insulation is permanently reidentified to indicate its use as an ungrounded conductor, by painting or other effective means at its termination, and at each location where the conductor is visible and accessible.
