Extending a circuit with Romex through the panel

[Vinci]

I have a 20-amp GFCI-protected quad attached directly off my panel. I would like to extend that circuit to another quad down the wall. To do this, I would like to tap into the "load" side of the second outlet in the existing box to feed some Romex back into the panel enclosure so that I can use the panel's vertical path to run the Romex into the ceiling and over to where it will drop down to feed the other quad.

Based on the searching I did, it doesn't appear that the NEC prohibits having insulated Romex within the panel, but I am not sure if it makes any difference that the panel is being used as a wiring path in this case.

Is it against code or good practice to do such a thing?

 

[MikeYC]

312.7?

 

[Higgins]

What about install the romex to the 2nd location. Then strip the last ~ 3 Ft of the romex so the wires can run thru the panel and then to the load side of the 1st GFI! Terminate ground wire on gnd bar.

AL

 

[pattenp]

It is against code. I am looking it up now.

2011 NEC 312.8 allows feed-through conductors in the breaker panel.

 

[MikeYC]

2011 NEC 312.8 allows feed-through conductors in the breaker panel.

My apologies. I looked in the old code book file by default. gotta get these guys to remove the old **** form the system.


That was a change in the 2011. but you have to marked it also.


R,
Mike

 

[Vinci]

Thanks for the info! It will be nice not to have to run more conduit to get back up to the ceiling.

 

[pattenp]

.......
That was a change in the 2011. but you have to marked it also.

R,
Mike

Vinci, to mark it means the enclosure needs to have a warning label applied that identifies the closest disconnecting means for the feed through conductors.

 

[Vinci]

Vinci, to mark it means the enclosure needs to have a warning label applied that identifies the closest disconnecting means for the feed through conductors.

In this case, that would be the breaker in that enclosure. Would that be redundant?

 

[pattenp]

In this case, that would be the breaker in that enclosure. Would that be redundant?

I don't see that it's redundant. The label on the enclosure needs to state that the disconnect for the feed through conductors is in that enclosure. I'd go as far to put on the label which breaker(s) disconnect the feed through conductors. The label is more so for someone else in the future working in the panel that doesn't know where those conductors are fed from.

 

[Vinci]

Fair enough. It seems like the spirit of the code is to cover the possibility of there being live wires inside a panel when the panel's main is shut off, which makes a lot of sense. In this case, those wires would be de-energized as well with the main off, since they are fed directly by that panel.

Maybe it would be less confusing for the next person if I just ran a dedicated conduit instead of using the existing raceway. I know that if I saw a warning like that, I'd be trying to figure out why I was being warned about wires passing through being energized when there aren't any other (known) sources.

 

[Alchymist]

Just curious, why not just run the romex from the breaker itself and just add another GFCI at the new location? (provided the breakers are the type to allow this, like Square D QO, ect). Seems a lot simpler.

 

[Vinci]

Just curious, why not just run the romex from the breaker itself and just add another GFCI at the new location? (provided the breakers are the type to allow this, like Square D QO, ect). Seems a lot simpler.

That would be simpler. I will have to take a look at the breaker to make sure it can accommodate more than one 12-gauge conductor. It's a 20-amp Cutler-Hammer tandem breaker, so the holes for the screw terminals may be a little smaller than the non-tandems.

Is there no problem with running 2 quads in parallel on the same breaker?

 

[Alchymist]

Commercially, if the breakers have lugs you cannot put any more than one wire under a single lug on the load side. If you try to put two wires (one on each side of the same lug) and tighten down the screw it might work fine for a time, but eventually you can run into an issue where the leg that gets used the most goes through more warming and cooling (expansion and contraction) cycles than the second wire does which can cause the leg that is used the most to become loose in the lug.

You might also create a fire hazard because even if you do preventative care of your panel and occasionally go through and check to make sure all the lugs are still tight you might think everything is fine because the breaker lug is still firmly seated against the lesser used wire. You also have no way of knowing when the breaker lug is initially tightened if the screw force on both wires is equal or if 95% of the screw force is going into only one of the wires and the other wire is only getting 5% so it will become loose in a much shorter amount of time than a single wire per lug ever would.

Square D, as i mentioned before, has breakers rated for two conductors. Never heard of one causing any problems. I would imagine there are others out there also.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclie...&fp=1&biw=853&bih=436&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&cad=b

 

[Higgins]

I have a 125 Amp Square D panel in the garage, and the Square D breakers allow a wire on each side of the screw!

This drives the home inspectors crazy.................. Every time they pull that BS, I ask them for their electrical license number. Then we hand them a copy of the spec for the breaker!!! Then watch the realtor's eyes roll!!!!

AL

 

[Charles (in GA)]

Just curious, why not just run the romex from the breaker itself and just add another GFCI at the new location? (provided the breakers are the type to allow this, like Square D QO, ect). Seems a lot simpler.

Run one wire (pigtail) out of the breaker, then wire nut it to the wire going down to the original GFCI and also include in the wirenut the wire going up to the second GFCI. Quite legal to have splices in the panel.

While the OP did not tell use where he lived, nor whether the panel is residential or commercial, the vast majority of participants are asking questions about their homes or residential shops. Very few commercial shops on here.

Charles

 

[Vinci]

The breaker won't support two conductors. The lug is just too small. The spec sheet doesn't have any mention of supporting more than 1 either.

FWIW, the model is "CHT2020".

Charles, I am located in Florida and this is in a residence.

 

[justsam]

Why not put in another breaker to feed the new quad since you are in the panel anyway to do the pass thru.

The discussed solutions may well all be code legal but could confuse a later owner, cause an inspector to pause etc. For the time and money, and to save me future grief or arguments, I would just put in another breaker, assuming you have room, and put in another GFCI in the new quad, (you will only need one, since it can supply the other outlet in the quad. Any added cost is worth it, gives you more flexibilty in terms of maximum current on the quad legs.

 

[Vinci]

Why not put in another breaker to feed the new quad since you are in the panel anyway to do the pass thru.

The discussed solutions may well all be code legal but could confuse a later owner, cause an inspector to pause etc. For the time and money, and to save me future grief or arguments, I would just put in another breaker, assuming you have room, and put in another GFCI in the new quad, (you will only need one, since it can supply the other outlet in the quad. Any added cost is worth it, gives you more flexibilty in terms of maximum current on the quad legs.

The panel is full and I am resorting to swapping in tandem breakers to get the new circuits. I'd prefer not to waste a breaker, since one of the quads will never see more than 2-3 amps at max.

Thanks for all of the suggestions. I guess there are a lot of ways to skin this cat.

 

[Alchymist]

If it were me I would leave the breaker alone as it is and pull the hot, neutral, and ground you need out off of the existing outlet box and then run all 3 wires, the hot, neutral, and the ground straight up and through the panel without terminating any of them within the panel anywhere. Run them out the top and into your new outlet box and terminate it in that box like normal with pigtailed outlets. That is exactly how it would all be run if you had just added a conduit between the two outlet boxes, but you are just using the panel as a conduit instead for convenience. Then when you are done put some tape around all 3 wires going through the panel and label the bundle with the circuit number of the breaker feeding the wires power. That should be fine and satisfy an inspector and any electrician should be easily able to visually understand what is going on pretty quickly.

Best solution is still to run a separate circuit, adding a breaker or switching in a tandem if possible. Depends on slot availability. Cost of an additional GFCI outlet is negligible, and gives added circuit capacity.

 

[theoldwizard1]

Run one wire (pigtail) out of the breaker, then wire nut it to the wire going down to the original GFCI and also include in the wirenut the wire going up to the second GFCI. Quite legal to have splices in the panel.

Been there, done that. No issues.

 

[wyliesdiesels]

..... I watched a man that was my good friend (who was also married with kids) blow himself up working on a 480v 3 phase main service panel right in front of me. He happened to be wearing a fleece and the entire pullover spontaneously combusted and melted right to his skin instantly. He almost died from second and third degree skin burns over a large part of his body and from smoke inhalation. I was standing 5 feet away and I ended up with second degree burns on my hands from trying to help him get the melting fleece off of his body and I had an instant bad sunburn on my whole face and arms (as well as all the hair singed off my face and arms) just from the initial heat blast. An electrical short puts out a blast that may or may not be very large depending on the circumstance, but it is hotter than the surface of the sun. It will melt a chunk out of your steel wire strippers in an instant and even a very minor shock can send a pulse through your body that can easily stop your heart or throw off your heart rhythm and it might not happen until hours later.

Be careful out there people. Residential is not as dangerous because the voltages are lower, but that does not mean it is safe. The most dangerous person on earth is the person that knows just enough about something to think they have it all under control. Just something to think about. If any of you are not comfortable do not do it, but the most important key when trying to do it is to never just learn from one source, and never try to learn just enough to complete a certain task you want to do and that is it. Try to learn the theory behind all of it and then apply that to your specific problem and you will have a better chance of not injuring yourself.

Just curious: What did he do that caused this to happen other than obviously wearing the wrong thing while working on a live 480v panel? I do all phases of electrical, mostly residential and commercial as there's not much industrial these days!

 

[sberry]

The panel is full and I am resorting to swapping in tandem breakers to get the new circuits. I'd prefer not to waste a breaker, since one of the quads will never see more than 2-3 amps at max.

Thanks for all of the suggestions. I guess there are a lot of ways to skin this cat.

Do this, I agree with not wasting a space here.

In reality many of circuits in the avg home could be ganged. I have gas appliances, could live on 4 circuits easy 1 being used for fridge.

 

[Vinci]

UPDATE: I completed the wiring for this on Sunday. After considering all of the options, I ended up going with my original plan of feeding the new quad from the existing quad and using the panel as the wire path. I made a note (P-Touch label) on the Romex going through the panel to list the breaker feeding it and where it was going, but I decided not to put a label on the outside of the panel to avoid confusion. Since there are no wires passing though the panel that would remain energized with the panel main off, I don't see that run being in violation of the NEC rule requiring a warning for wires passing through the enclosure with different feeds. I suppose an inspector might disagree with that, but I feel like the spirit of the code would be satisfied.

 

[wyliesdiesels]

We were working on the 400 amp panel replacing all the branch circuit breakers (because they were getting old and unreliable and to make some changes) for a private veterinary clinic inside a large zoo. It was a top-fed panel (from the utility) and we had the panel main off at the time. There was an extra 50 amp 3 phase branch circuit breaker that was hooked up but no longer needed so my partner was unhooking the load side of the breaker and fishing the now unneeded wires out the top of the panel by loosening the corresponding conduit setscrew and pulling up on the conduit while hand feeding the wires through the top panel wall. One or two of the wires slipped out of his hands while he was feeing them out the top of the panel and they whipped around and hit the hot incoming lines on the line side of the main from the utility. There were three loud bangs in rapid succession and about the first foot of each of the wires that hit the hot incoming lines completely vaporized. Some wood paneling (that was used for a telephone spliceboard) within 4 feet of the panel opening started on fire immediately from the heat pulse in addition to my friend's pullover. I think the only thing that saved him was the fact that he was wearing a cotton t-shirt under his fleece, as that helped prevent a lot of the fleece from completely fusing to his skin. He was still in the hospital for months though.

There is a possible silver lining to the whole event, because he was forced to immediately quit smoking from then on (and he was a heavy smoker). According to the doctors the chemicals in cigarettes can cause spontaneous rejection of skin grafts (the doctors said that it can happen if he starts smoking again even after they have healed later on and they were very serious about it) so maybe he will actually live longer as a result of this happening than he would have if he was still a heavy smoker.

Ouuuuccchhhh! Were u guys not able to have the PoCo shut the power off temporarily?

I use to work with a guy who got shocked by 480v while up in a cherry picker inside a plant. When they got him down after getting zapped, they had to revive him and he ended up being in a coma in the hospital for months. I was surprised he went back into industrial electrical after that.

These examples are all good reasons to shut off the power before working on 480v systems. I try to always shut off the juice when im working on 480v panels but there's been a few times where it just wasnt possible due to plant scheduling!

But i digress and dont want to steal the thread anymore, so carryon with the original post!